Talk:Midshipman/GA1

GA Review

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • References needed:

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. 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):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Comment I'm not satisfied with the article structure. You have well researched the current use in the military navy. You can reduce the equivalent in other navies to a table with equivalent ranks, no need for chapters. What absolutely needs expansion and structure is the history section. You have the seperation of commercial and war navy and you already started to make a difference between the service and the schooling appproach. Turn these into different chapters. Then highlight what exactly the boys learned in this schools and what they needed for their exam. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• • The article doesn't well cover the history of midshipmen and has therefore WP:recentism as a bias, thus failing WP:NPOV.

• I'd have to respectfully disagree with the WP:recentism comment, and failing WP:NPOV, especially since that was unsigned. "Midshipman" isn't something that was recently in the news, just the history section needs some more specific information.

I added chapters in the history section, and a table of equivalent ranks. Kirk (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • I worked through the article again. Citations are missing, else it's OK now. If you want to achieve a good GA article, expand what the midshipmen were/are learning and on what they were/are examined. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I have problems with footnotes 5 and 21. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, will do. Added more citations & I don't see the problem with 5. 21 fixed. Kirk (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Citation 5 was invalid. It's very good that you pointed out what midshipmen had to learn, but your average reader isn't a trained sailor. Please provide explanations or wikilinks for the terms you use. Some structures don't make sense. It would also be a stylistic improvement if you break it up into small sentences each about a topic like manual work, astronomy, and so on. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I updated the terms I could, and I found a book "Seamanship in the Age of Sail" which is on Google books but not in my local library, I'm hoping it has better explanations for those archaic terms. Young Gentlemen I recall has some more details about the actual types of tasks but I had to return the book a few weeks ago.Kirk (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Fix the missing references and it can pass GA. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
              • Thanks again - I fixed the missing references, with the exception of the 'other countries' section. The first paragraph was my editorial comment, so that needs to be deleted, I'm just not sure what to put instead. What exactly should be referenced in the table? Kirk (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
                • The whole table needs references. Either you use one reference in the introduction such as in Late Roman army#Junior officers or you reference each entry such as in list of battles by casualties. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
                  • The original table is from researching the rank wikipedia articles. I did a quick search on http://www.uniforminsignia.net/index.php, and I couldn't find Germany, Netherlands correlated to Midshipman, but it might be a historical term. In the insignia website they translate the russian word as Warrant Officer, which makes me suspicious. The names all correlate to the Russian, German, French, Portuguese, Dutch, and Spanish translations for 'Midshipman', but that's probably not reliable enough. I won't be working on this for at least a week. Thanks for your help! Kirk (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
                    • If it's not sourceable remove anything unsourced. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
                      • A few images need captions. That should be easy. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
                        • Ok, I can think of more things to add (i.e. explaining why Canada got rid of Midshipmen & South Africa), but hopefully we're done for now. Kirk (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)