Jump to content

Talk:STV Astrid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSTV Astrid has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 28, 2014Good article nomineeListed
October 2, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 9, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the tall ship Astrid served as a lugger, an alleged drug smuggling boat, and luxury sailing ship during its 95-year history?
Current status: Good article

DYK nomination

[edit]

Nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/Astrid (brig). Suggestions for better hooks would be very welcome! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]

"Where sources give measurements in Imperial units, these have been switched around to present them as metric units converted to Imperial."

Why? {{convert}} supports a |disp=flip parameter that displays output value followed by input value: {{convert|100.9|ft|m|disp=flip}} → 30.8 metres (100.9 ft). This allows presentation as desired and eliminates the dual conversion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now switched them to the formatting you suggest, and have removed the note. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Astrid (brig)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 02:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC) I'll do this one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Checklist

  • Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
  • Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
  1. Greyham Neilson's Vision (info) [adventureundersail.com] - dead link
     Done, now uses archive link. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Astrid Plundered (info) [eveningecho.ie] - dead link
     Not done, page doesn't seem to have been caught by a web archive. :-( I'm not sure what to do here - would it be best to just remove the reference and re-source the info? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This article has one major issue that jumps out. It uses past tense while the ship is still in existence, meaning that all the tenses need to be switched until it is actually destroyed. Quite often some of these ships are restored after being condemned to the yards, and if it hasn't happened yet, it might not happen at all.

 Not done see discussion below. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As built, W.U.T.A. had a gross register tonnage of 182; she was 143 net register tonnage with a capacity of 123 tons under her deck." - cite please.
     Done. I think the note was obscuring this reference (#13); I've now removed the note along with reformatting the numbers as per the #Notes section above. I guess the ref could be included multiple times in that paragraph if that would help make it clearer still. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her dimensions were 30.75 metres (100.9 ft) length, 6.49 metres (21.3 ft) beam and 2.90 metres (9.5 ft) depth." - Cite please, the note is just on conversion.
     Done as per the above, but the ref here is #14. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please expand on the details of the Astrid Trust?
     Done I've added a point about the type of organisation it was, but I can't find much else out about it online. :-( I'm not sure there's much more to tell here, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • HRH is at an issue with WP:HONORIFICS
     Done HRH has been removed from the link. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Astrid Trust was wound up" - please fix this "wound up" matter.
     Done, I've linked to the explanation of the term. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Astrid had two deckhouses: one at the stern with navigational equipment and maps, and another forward containing a bar. The lower deck had twelve 2-person cabins (of which three could be used as 3-person cabins) as well as showers, toilets and a galley.[28]" - Please join the above lines or expand, because this section is extremely short on details and risks the article's focused coverage.
     Not done I don't know of refs that can be used to expand this, and I think the description here (even if it is brief) is fairly important for the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "GPS Atlas" is a redlink(Fine if notable) and if its a ship, should be in italics
     Done It's now in italics. I think it's notable, as it's included in the list of the biggest sheerlags in the sheerlag article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finland – Sailing Ships". Lets Talk Stamps. 26 March 2011 is a blog, could you not get another source for the information?
     Done in discussion below. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, its short and could use some additional details and coverage given that the vessel has been around for 90 years. It is just a borderline GA with the fixes right now, so please put some more content into it. I'll place this on hold. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the review Chris. :-) I'm travelling at the moment so it might be a while before I can tackle these points. On your last one, I've looked fairly hard for as many references as I could find here, do you have any suggestions of places I could find references I might have overlooked? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gotchu I gotchu :) Already added the ref. Good luck with the review! Newyorkadam (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
P.S. Are you the same Mike Peel from Wikimedia UK?
Yes. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. I found the ref by googling "ship astrid stamps -queen" (because Queen Astrid kept on clogging my results)
P.P.P.S. Here's another ref I found that I hope helps. I didn't add it into the article though.
I'll see what I can dig up, but let me know when you can dedicate some time to it Mike Peel. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably going to be around the 25th-26th before I can put more effort into this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a ref to [1], which I just stumbled across. It looks pretty definite to me that the ship is going to be broken up rather than restored again, so I think the use of past tense in this article is justified. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree... but I do see that it is inherently likely. The tense matter however makes it seem as if it was already done. Let's not worry about it though. The source is interesting, could you add the details form the "Scheepslog" section as it is indeed additional information that helps out. I'll leave this open so you can finish your work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post-peer review suggestions

[edit]

The Peer Review from 15 September has been archived, so these are just a couple of passing suggestions if anyone has the sources:

  • It's mildly confusing that "Structure" begins with explaining Astrid, then jumps to calling the vessel W.U.T.A. and then back to Astrid. Ideally the section would make clear all these details are the vessel as built in 1918, with followup material covering changes from the 1984 or 1999 refits.
  • The last paragraph doesn't belong in the salvage section, which would naturally conclude with announcement that the vessel would be scrapped. is there sufficient material to create a final section detailing both what happened to Astrid (the designer handbags are a nice touch), and what if any legacy the vessel had? Given its history, there must somewhere be testimonials or public comment on its significance in the scrapping.
  • The article doesn't really explain why this vessel was so significant that an Astrid Trust was set up, or why notables such as Princess Anne were involved. It meets WP:N but never states its own case for importance compared with any similar vessel.

Just some passing opinions, and nothing that detracts from this as a good article. Euryalus (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Euryalus! Sorry for the belated reply. On your first point: I've simplified the references to the name of the vessel so that we talk about "Astrid" mostly, and note "WUTA" for historical reasons where needed. On your second point: now that we have the incident report, I've added a "Investigation" section that includes the last paragraph from the salvage section along with new content. TBH, I'm not sure what legacy the vessel has, nor am I aware of testimonials or public comments about the significance of its scrapping. On your third point: that's very true, but I don't know what the explanation is. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accident report

[edit]

The MCIB have published their report into the loss of Astrid. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - there's a paragraph about the outcomes in the article. There's plenty of news articles about it that could do with referencing:
The article could do with a bit of reworking to incorporate the information in the report. I hope to get to this soon, but I need to get a few other things done first. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on STV Astrid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:STV_Astrid&oldid=1212910198"