Talk:ICGV Þór (2009)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 09:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

MOS:

There should be no duplicate wikilinks in the article per WP:OVERLINK. One such instance in the article is: Björn Bjarnason. Done
Checklinks/dablinks indicate no problems (no action required).
The article employs a mix of British and American spellings, for example harbor (AE) and defence (BE). Choose one per WP:ENGVAR and use it consistently. These two are just examples, there may be more instances to fix, depending of selected variant of English.

I believe this is

Done.

Does the "State Trading Center" go by the English name? If its name is originally in Icelandic (which I suspect) then "center" is also a word presented in AE spelling.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Done[reply]

Ah, yes. Corrected.

Use {{convert}} template to convert metric measurements to other types of units in order to enhance comprehension of the article in, well, English speaking audience of the Eng wiki. Done
- The units have to be spelled out per MOS - anyway I added the convert templates for you.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the source data used, you probably need to use tonnes as unit of measurement instead of tons in e.g. "towing capacity of 120 tonnes". Done
Citations should follow an punctuation, rather than precede one, as in ... (which is now a nonexistent entity[1]), ... (per MOS:PUNCTFOOT)
After the first mention of a person (which should include first and last names and function/title etc), subsequent mentions of the same person should be made by last name unless the person has only patronymic - as most Icelanders do - and then they should be referred to by their first name (per WP:SURNAME). In this particular article, one such example is ... Björn Bjarnason, then-Minister of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs ... in the "Construction" section, and the entire cited bit should be replaced by "Björn" accordingly. Done

As such? (see article)

Indeed. (see WP:SURNAME for this odd detail)--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In "2010 tsunami incident" subsection and "Delivery" section (possibly elsewhere, please check), Þór in the ICGV "Þór" should not be all-caps, should not be in quotation marks and should be italicized per MOS:ITALIC as it stands for a ship's name. Note that the ICGV should remain non-italicized. Done
Single digit numerals should be spelled out in the prose as words per WP:ORDINAL.

I don't believe this applies to dates or earthquake magnitudes, so

Done

Referencing:

What makes "http://www.bjorn.is/" a reliable source per WP:RS. As far as I can tell from a machine translation, it looks like a blog. Please correct me if I got a wrong impression. Done

I believe the site is a biographical/autobiographical website.

Unfortunately that would disqualify it per WP:SPS. Can you get another source for that information (that he was once a member of the ICG)? If not, I suggest you to omit the claim.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claim has been removed. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images:

Images have proper licences (no action required).
There are no captions accompanying the images in the gallery. WP:GACR explicitly require image captions as a GA class criterion. Done
Image galleries are discouraged per WP:IG - although if you insist on having it here, there's nothing in the WP:GACR barring that. I would advise you to pick those images that are really needed for the article (although the two already placed within the prose do just fine) and link the rest using the {{Commons}} template. Done

Not only does the gallery lengthen the page, but its presence provides a description of the vessel that I would like to remain on the page.

Prose:

In The ICGV Þór (Thor) is an UT 512L type offshore patrol vessel designed by Rolls Royce for the Icelandic Coast Guard ship, built to replace the aging ICGV Óðinn., I suspect "ship" is redundant and should be removed. Or was it intended to contain "as an Icelandic Coast Guard ship"? Done
After securing a contract, construction of the ship began on 16 October 2007. should say who secured the contract, or omit the first part of the sentence altogether. If the sentence is truncated, consider merging it with the following one (this is in the lead). Done

There are most likely an abundance of prose peccancies and foibles such as this one, due to the fact that I comprehensively overhauled this article.

The mention that the shipbuilding was delayed because of the earthquake (in the lead) reads odd. That can be remedied by introducing the information that "The construction of the ship began in Chile on 16 October 2007" or something along those lines. In that case the earthquake bit sounds reasonable. Done
Introduce abbreviations immediately after the full term is presented in the prose, for example: "Icelandic Coast Guard (ICG)". Done
The first part of the "Construction" section is confusing. Were the bids submitted to the State Trading Center, Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs or the ICG or a combination of any of those. Please reword to clarify. Done
The second bid of ASMAR implies ASMAR submitted two bids in this tender procedure, i.e. two bids to build the Þór. Is that right? Done

Yes.

If the bids were placed consecutively, i.e. one after the other, then this is fine. If the bids were placed simultaneously, "the second bid" should be changed to "one of two bids". Which is it?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were not placed simultaneously. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No change required then.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In ASMAR Naval Shipyard in Chile, "in Chile" is fairly redundant. Done
The The then-unnamed vessel received the moniker "ÞÓR", or "Thor", after the Thor. implies that Þór/Thor was not an official name at the time the vessel was launched. When was the vessel named then? And, why all caps in "Þór"?

Reworded. Mistake, now mitigated.

I suspect a lot of readers will need to consult a dictionary re "lethiferous" - if I were writing the article, I'd say "deadly" - then again, this is entirely up to you and has nothing to do with WP:GACR. Done

I feel it is an apt word.

That's not a dealbreaker for me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's inappropriately poetic. I'm widely read and a decent Scrabble player and I still had to look it up. If not for this mention here I would have already gone in and changed it, and I'm strongly tempted to do so -- Resuna (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with "deadly", a synonym that's not archaich, and easily understood by English speakers of almost any ability level. Thejimoleary 00:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not say that the ship is 93.8 metres long instead of vague "nearly 94 m"? This applies to all units of measurements, if the sources provide more accurate figures. Done

The original author input this information.

Length of the ship in itself is a vague measurement. Can you check in the offered sources or elsewhere in additional sources if this measurement is Length overall (LOA), or some other vessel-length measurement (LWL etc.)? Done
The "Design" section seems out of place - I'd suggest moving it ahead of "Construction" or merging the two to have "Design and construction" instead. Done

This seems better.

Comprehensiveness/focus:

Where is the ICGV Þór based now? I assume it's Reykyavik, but the article does not say.

I know of one ICG base, Reykjavik, but I cannot find a reference for this. Should I add this factoid unreferenced?

Absolutely not. On the other hand, if you have access to a source saying "Reykyavik is the only ICG base", it would be ok to report that using that specific reference.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I only ascertain this because Reykjavik is the only port mentioned in context with the ICG. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, the ship's only two years old, but is it possible at all to say anything about its operational use - was it involved in any rescue or other type of mission that may warrant a mention in the article, or were the two years entirely uneventful? Done

Given the propensity of maritime accidents, I would say events most likely occurred during this time period, however I know of no operation overtly mentioning the involvement of this vessel.

The infobox mentions the complement of 48, but the article prose does not. Please include some info on that. Perhaps it would be possible to say how many of those are officers etc? Done

I have included this into the prose. No further specification is given in the sources, and so that is reflected in the prose.

The same applies to the 40 mm Bofors gun and the helicopter. What type of helicopter is used? Done

The vessel does not carry a helicopter, it is simply able to refuel a helicopter while the helicopter is hovering. Added mention of the armament.

Why is the NoCGV Harstad in the "See also" section? If the ship is the same design as the ICGV Þór, maybe that would warrant a mention in the "Design" portion of the article. Done

I believe it does.

I did some minor copyedits and wikilinking in the article. Please revert whatever you find messing up the matters. Please ask if you need any clarification re above raised issues. Nice article!--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the article a bit, feel free to revert whatever you feel necessary to. There's still the matter of "the second bid" which may need clarification (or not, depending on the answer to the question above) and the self-published bjorn.is source. In addition, I noticed the lead mentions ICGV Óðinn being replaced by this ship. That's fine but:

The lead should represent a summary of the article (per WP:LEDE), i.e. the information should be somewhere in the main article prose besides the lede, and
The information on ICGV Óðinn should be referenced in the main article prose.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is one possible American/British spelling issue too left, described above. Done
~~And just to make sure: was the ship in drydock when the tsunami struck the shipyard or was it placed in drydock after the tsunami (to inspect damage or whatever)?~~--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed that myself, the source contains information different from what was presented in the sentence.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The version currently in (changed since my last ce) stating Despite the odds, the ship, after being placed in dry dock had sustained minimal damage; means that the ship sustained damage after it was placed in the dry dock. The source used to back the claim up says that the ship was placed in the dry dock two months after the tsunami (i.e. two months after it sustained damage) to survey damage. Please amend accordingly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]

One thing remains: The information on ICGV Óðinn should be mentioned and referenced in the main article prose (not just the lede).--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]

It has been, within the "Origins" section. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My bad, I missed it. Passing.