Talk:Portland (1947 tugboat)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 16:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a go at reviewing this. I see it has already been around the block at DYK, so hopefully this will be a simple affair. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• "for the Port of Portland (the port district in Portland, Oregon, United States)" - might it be easier to simply say "for the Port of Portland, Oregon, United States"
  • Done, Name Omitted (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• "that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places." - suggest "and listed on the National Register of Historic Places"
  • Done Name Omitted (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• "and the Portland now hosts" - this would read better as the start of a new sentence
  • Combined with the National Register of Historic Places. Name Omitted (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Last of her kind

• I think the section title falls under the words to watch - "Background" would be simpler
  • Ok. We'll see if "history" works better. Name Omitted (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• "The Portland was built in 1947" - another source later on this paragraph has a specific date of August 29 which would be worth mentioning
  • I combined both paragraphs. Name Omitted (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• "The Portland was originally proposed" - to avoid repetition, "The boat" might be simpler
  • I removed a Portland earlier int he section to help with your concerns about repetition, but since this paragraph directly contrasts the current Portland with a previous one, I think the name is important here. Name Omitted (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• What makes www.steamboats.org a reliable source?
  • Um... I'll get back to you on that? Name Omitted (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Service history

• This section might be better served merged with the one above
  • Agreed. Name Omitted (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• "The Portland was delivered to the Port of Portland" - I think "to the Port of Portland" is probably redundant in this sentence
  • You are stylistically correct, but I think in this case it is important to list the name of the agency that took delivery of the vessel. Name Omitted (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Oregon Maritime Museum

• This source contains quite a bit more information about events in the 1990s, including $700,000 in donations and being shut down due to carrying passengers against regulations in 2001.
  • More information included, thank you Name Omitted (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• "called the Oregon Maritime Center and Museum until 2004 – " I wouldn't worry about this
  • I think this might have been fixed previously. Name Omitted (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Notable events

• "Other tugs tried to free her to no avail when the Portland came on the scene." - I'm not sure "came on the scene" is the right phrase to use here
  • Correct. Name Omitted (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• "the wash from Portland '​s paddle wheel in full reverse began to loosen the sand under S.G. Follis" - I'm unsure as to what text in the source is citing this
  • P. 12 of the document Name Omitted (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• "Portland and Columbia Gorge have since raced at least three times, with the Portland winning two of the races" - how can a source dated 1997 cite something happening after 2008?
  • A fair point. I'll try and find a citation for that, or drop it entirely. Name Omitted (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• "As of July 2012, an investigation was ongoing" - this is tagged and is 2 1/2 years out of date - what has happened to the investigation since?
  • A good question, actually. There is a a lot posted about the immediate aftermath, but little about the investigation. Name Omitted (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Pop culture references

• "The Portland '​s stern appears at the end of the opening credits for the TV series Portlandia, Seasons 1 and 2." - this claim is unsourced

Say, how do you cite the opening credits for a show? Name Omitted (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You can use the {{cite episode}} template (see the documentation for more). The catch with citing television is anyone else needs to be able to be in a position to watch the show at any other time. I've seen arguments on the reliable sources noticeboard about using YouTube videos as sources, which "verify" the information but are copyright violations so can't generally be cited. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• • This citation is good for specific episodes, I'll have to try and figure out how to fit a season title into it. I would be happy to simply omit this entirely, but it seemed important to some of the others who helped make the page what it is, so I'll try to find more later. Name Omitted (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary

• This is an interesting article about an important local ship. I think the main area of improvement would be to mine some of the sources a little more, as there's a lot of additional information that would help colour in some of the details. This would be useful as the article is only a little over 4K of prose as it stands. For the moment, I'll put the review on hold pending improvements. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Name Omitted: - any further progress on this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Grad school intervened. Things will hopefully calm down this weekend and I can get back to this. Name Omitted (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Name Omitted: - any progress, or has real life and work intervened? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As it's been three weeks without activity, I'll archive the review for the time being. Ping me when you're next around and we'll restart things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:I'm back. Sorry for the delay, thank you for all your work on this. I just graduated, I should not have attempted this project at the beginning of my final semester. Name Omitted (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Rating

Greetings! I had downgraded the rating from B to start because the page does not sufficiently meet some standards for B class (such as length, complete citations for every section, etc). I am not questioning the quality of the page or anything, I think you've all done a fine job, I just respectfully do not believe it to be B status. Thoughts? DaltonCastle (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle:I'm willing to accept that. The requirements for a B state that "Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher." In what way were you left wanting, as in, what information did you feel you did not have? I am not intending to challenge, just determine what new information should be gathered.Name Omitted (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

According to WikiProject Ships' quality scale, a start class article has little information on the topic, and most of it is poorly written and / or unsourced. Most articles that arrive at AfD are start or stub class. I don't think that's the case for this article - the major issues (as I think were mentioned in the GA review) are a few tags, and the "In popular culture" section should have a better title and the lists there should be formatted as prose. B class articles require "all major points" to be cited (while GAs require all points to be verifiable and correctly cited), but in this instance only a few ancillary points are left without sources, so I think B is a fair assessment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle: Today marks the third time you've downgraded this article's assessment by not one, but two, classes – all three times giving no rationale in the edit summary. The only time you offered any explanation, above, you gave you no clue as to why you skipped over C-class and went down from B to Start, and you also never offered any reply to Name Omitted's question asking what you feel is lacking. The consensus is clearly not with you. Please stop making two-level downgrades in assessments without giving more explanation. SJ Morg (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

got carried away. Saw it on Unassessed AfC articles and didnt realize I had been here before. When I assess pages I look at several categories. First is length, since this is the most telling to determine stub or start class. Then I look at references and formatting. Then quality. Upon further review I would agree the page is above start class. But I do not believe it meets the requirements for B class. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove the red links and ill leave the assessment alone. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)