Talk:Phoenix (fireboat)

To-do list

Here are some suggestions for expansion:

• Was a star of the movie The Enforcer 1976; Clint drove the boat and used the pump at Alcatraz
• Fill out a little more of Template:Infobox ship characteristics
• List the crew positions, notable people
• Describe how the Phoenix at the Marina was what stimulated people to obtain the Guardian from Vancouver.
• Describe some of the ship parades, such as the greeting of ARM Cuauhtémoc (BE01) in 2005[1] and 2009. Other tall ships greeted in 2008. Other naval ships greeted.
• Describe earlier fires from 1955, 1980, 1984.
• More details of 2004 overhaul: money spent, time spent, who, where
• When did the original 16-foot-high tower monitor get replaced with a higher one?
• Discuss the Portable Water Supply System (PWSS) established in the mid-1980s and its role in 1989 as related to the Phoenix.
• Mention the proposed monument to the 1989 quake to be placed in the Marina district, incorporating the old tower monitor.

The article is already big enough for "Did you know" on the WP:Main page. A hook (or two or three) must be put together, something to grab people's attention. Then we go to T:TDYK and add it there. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will lay off the to-do list so as not to hog the article. ^_^

I will, however, nominate it for DYK. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! How will we know if/when it's chosen for inclusion in DYK? Microfirmware (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Our hook has been approved already, so now we just wait for its turn to come around on the Main page. If you're super curious, you can keep checking this page regularly: Template:Did you know/Queue

That's where the DYK administrators arrange the entries, sort them out, and decide which ones get to be lead hooks with an image and which ones (the majority) do not. If you're not so curious, you can sit back and wait for a congratulations-type notice to show up on your personal talk page about one minute after the fireboat hook goes 'live' on the Main page. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Please feel free to offer another attention-grabbing hook at this article's DYK submission:

• Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on March 30 or
• Template talk:Did you know#Phoenix (fireboat) (At least one of these links should work!)

To do so, you would write *'''ALT1''': followed by your suggested hook.

You can even suggest a different photo, in case you think another one would be more striking when presented at 100 pixel width (very small) on the Main page. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The DYK hook is being arranged at Template:Did you know/Queue. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The schedule is set for the DYK lead hook appearance 1–9 am San Francisco time on April 13. That's the wee hours through sunrise, so local nightcrawlers such as firefighters will see it the earliest. After that will be people waking up and getting ready for their day. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phoenix (fireboat)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dolphin51 (talk · contribs) 11:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Images and disambiguation pages

Three images checked. All adequately licensed.

No disambiguation links. Dolphin (t) 11:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The opening sentence states that Phoenix is owned by California. In the Infobox it states the owner is the State of California. In "History" it states Phoenix was paid for by the State of California. I suggest State of California be used throughout.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolphin51 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 February 2012‎

I have no further comments on the lead. Dolphin (t) 04:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

History

Lower case l (ell) is an acceptable abbreviation for litre. However, to avoid confusion with the number one, upper case L is also accepted. I suggest upper case L should be used throughout.

The cited source explains that the boat's two centrifugal pumps can each pump 3,200 gpm at 150 psi, so that is 6,400 gpm at 150 psi. It also states the boat can pump 3,200 gpm at 300 psi, and this is feasible – half the rate at twice the pressure. Unfortunately, the source also states the boat can deliver 9,000 gpm at 150 psi and this is inconsistent with the above information. Unless the statement about 9,000 gpm can be explained in a manner that is consistent with the other information I suggest it should be removed from the article. Dolphin (t) 22:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I have implemented your suggestions, capitalizing the L of liter, streamlining the way the owner is presented, and by fixing the gallons per minute error (or white lie) that was present in the source and which fooled me. The source adds up all the monitors (nozzles) to get 9,000 gpm, but of course the two pumps are the true limit of how much water the boat can pump at one time. I am glad you caught that. :)

Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Just part of the service!

Firefighting

The second sentence describes a fire in 1980 and one in 1984, and separates the two with a comma. The fire in 1984 and the one that caused $2.5 million in damage are separated by a semi-colon suggesting they are different. After reading the sentence a few times I now think the two events separated by a semi-colon are actually the same. This should be repaired.

In the second para it says Phoenix quickly put out the Berganger's blaze, but the tanker took longer. I suggest it should say but the Independent took longer. Alternatively, it could say quickly put out the freighter's blaze, but the tanker took longer.

There is a puzzling sentence saying A year later, a gasoline barge exploded while Phoenix and the Coast Guard were investigating ... What do you think of the following alternative syntax?

A year later, a gasoline barge collided with rocks. While Phoenix and the Coast Guard were investigating, the barge exploded killing two Coast Guardsmen and one nearby workman.

Dolphin (t) 01:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I used an em dash to keep the $2.5 million connected to 1984. I opted for "freighter" and "tanker". I recast the gasoline barge sentence much as you suggested. Binksternet (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Those changes look good.

1989 Marina District fires

The second para ends with the sentence Fire crews were manning hoses laid in anticipation ... This sentence is unsourced. I suspect one of the existing citations could be used to support this sentence.

I am uneasy about the following pair of sentences:

"Former mayor Feinstein wrote after the earthquake that the boat "unquestionably saved the Marina from a greater catastrophe". Feinstein, whose term as San Francisco mayor ended 21 months before the earthquake, saved the city's only fireboat from suggested budget cuts as one of her last mayoral acts."

The first of these two sentences describes events after the earthquake; the second describes an event before. The syntax of the second sentence is not good. The following is the start of a better alternative but it is probably not yet ideal:

As one of Mayor Feinstein's last mayoral acts before retiring, she saved the city's only fireboat from suggested budget cuts. 21 months later the earthquake struck. She wrote that the boat "unquestionably saved the Marina from a greater catastrophe".

Dolphin (t) 11:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I implemented something much like your suggested improvement in chron order. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Residue

I notice there is an existing category called Category:San Francisco Bay. It includes a small number of article about ferries and other boats. This article would go well in that category.

I have now finished my review. The article is very sound and ready for promotion to GA. Under "1989 Marina District fires" I mentioned an unsourced sentence at the end of a para. Comment on that one and we are all done with the review. Dolphin (t) 04:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I added the category. I removed the uncited sentence after searching the various sources for support, and finding nothing. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops! I found something in the Frederick Postel report to support the sentence. Two fire captains talking about where to make their stand if they had more water, the water to be coming from Phoenix. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

1. Prose: Good
2. Style: Complies
3. Verifiable: Complies via citations and references
4. Broad: Sufficiently broad coverage of a very specialised topic
5. Focused Very focused
6. NPOV: Complies
7. Stable: Stable
8. Images: Checked
9. Overall: Pass

Dolphin (t) 02:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.