Talk:Leschi (fireboat)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 19:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will work through the article, leaving the lead until the end. Please do not use strikethrough to indicate that you have addressed an issue, as it makes the review difficult to read at a later date, and it is an important record of why the article was/was not awarded good article status.Bob1960evens (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The KomoTV link is dead, but the web page has been archived on the wayback machine.

Not done This just needs the archiveurl and archivedate fields filling in.

Added. LavaBaron (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have tweaked the format. The archiveurl needs to be in its own field, rather than in the url field. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I review this article with some trepidation, as I would not have submitted it for GA review at this stage if I had written it. My concerns are the very short paragraphs, and whether the article is broad in its coverage. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout states: The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points. Most of the paragraphs are short, and there is one instance of a single short sentence in its own subsection. However, I think things may be fixable, if you are willing to try.

Background and construction

As an outsider with no knowledge of Seattle, the background section leaves something to be desired. I think it needs some genuine background. There is plenty of material for this in your refs 3 (something on the geography and why Seattle needs fireboats at all) and 5 (when Seattle fireboats were first introduced). This would give some context to the building of the new boat.

Done This is much better.

Having mentioned Kadi Camara, we need to know why her suggestion was used. (ref says it was some sort of competition). The fact that she also got to ride on the boat would add some human interest.

Half done

Done Added she got a ride. Competition already mentioned. No information available about judges' deliberations. LavaBaron (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Deployment heading needs to be removed, and the text incorporated into the previous section. It is then debatable whether this needs a sub-heading at all, or whether it should just be a History section.

Done

It is unclear why Alki was Seattle's principal firefighting ship, when they also operated the much newer Chief Seattle.

Half done

Done Rephrased to omit that it was the principal firefighting ship. LavaBaron (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, ref 3 says the Chief Seattle was the flagship of the fire department after it was introduced in 1985. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design and capabilities

This could do with some expansion. There is mention of two engines. The hp (kW) could perhaps be mentioned, and the fact that the boat contains another two engines to drive the pumps.

Done

The abbreviation SFD is used without qualification. It should be described in full on first occurrence ...Seattle Fire Department (SFD)... either here or maybe in the lead.

Done

By displacement and pump capacity... is mentioned, but the actual displacement does not appear in the article. Is it known?

Not done

No. LavaBaron (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in ref 3 as just under 300 tons. (Weight is the same as displacement for a ship). I think that needs adding. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

The fact that conventional controls have been replaced by a touchscreen system could be mentioned.

Done

Mission

It is unclear whether this mission statement was a device employed by Professional Mariner or is an official statement by Seattle Fire Dept. Unless you are sure it is by SFD, I would qualify it by naming Professional Mariner here.

Done

Either the next four paragraphs need expanding, or the sub-headings need to be removed. There is more information that could be added about the design of the CBRN system, and no mention of the cooling water fog system, which allows the boat to work close to fires without burning up, for instance.

Done

Note 1 needs a reference. If it is worth mentioning, why not include it in the body of the text?

Done

5000 gallons and 6000 gallons need a conversion to litres.

Done

Lead

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not easy to get its length right, but it could do with just a little more text. From the Background section, perhaps mention that it is the latest of a line of fireboats operated since 1891. From procurement, mention either of the naming competition or the Nisqually chief. It will still be quite short, but then the article is also quite short, so I think that may be enough. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The formal bit

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):
See comments above, particularly on layout
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):
See comments above on broad coverage
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
I note the problems in October 2015, and the heated exchange on the RfC, but there is no evidence of recent edit warring.
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:

I hope you do not feel that I have savaged your article. What you have written is well written and well referenced, but I think fails to meet the 'broad in coverage' requirement. Let me know what you think, and whether there is a reasonable prospect of you being able to fix it. I have not reviewed the lead yet, as that needs to introduce and summarise the article, and will be affected by alterations to the body of the text. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob1960evens - sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience. I think I've addressed all the issues you've outlined. Please let me know if I missed something. LavaBaron (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked up the text with icons to show what I think has been done, and added one more issue, plus a review of the lead. Where the issue is part done, you either need to address the rest of it or at least comment if there is a reason why is has not been/should not be done. I'll leave the article on hold for a little longer. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bob1960evens - I've edited and made notes above. LavaBaron (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there. The conversion of the 5000/6000 gallons, adding of the displacement, and the expansion of the lead are still outstanding, but it is looking much better. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:LavaBaron has appealed for more time, as he is out of town. See User talk:LavaBaron. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob1960evens - updated these LavaBaron (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed. I am awarding it good article status. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]