Template:Did you know nominations/Portland (steam tug 1947)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Portland (steam tug 1947)

(

)

... that the Portland, a restored 1947 sternwheeler based in Portland, Oregon, was the last steam-powered tugboat built in the United States?

Created/expanded by Name Omitted (talk). Nominated by SJ Morg (talk) at 12:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Article moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Portland (steam tug 1947) on August 1, 2012 so new enough. Interesting hook and article laid out well. Long enough. The three images are cc, cc, and pd, so all fine there. References are aplenty and verified except for one citation request tag. It's placed in a section that deals with the construction and the steam, heat exchangers, and boilers. Going to put this on hold for now, but wouldn't mind a second look either. BTW, my father worked for the Port of Portland back in the 60s as a photographer. I wonder if he's still got some pictures from back then; probably, he's a maritime nut. Dawnseeker2000 03:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my apparent error regarding the date of the article's creation. I didn't realize that pages located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation don't count as articles yet, for DYK-evaluation purposes. I thought my nomination was made just before the 5-day limit, but I guess I actually had two more days! Regarding your review comments: I've removed the unsourced text for now (and removed the section heading, as there was no longer enough prose there to warrant making it a separate section), without replacement, as it was not essential. Maybe it can be re-added later, if someone can supply a citation, but I have not asked the article's creator, because I checked the history and found that he/she added that text themselves, with the "citation needed" tag from the beginning, so they probably don't have a reliable source for it and were hoping someone else would. I hoped I might be able to replace it with text on the same general subject – the tug's design and mechanics – and I found some detail in the NRHP registration form. However, I gave up trying to use that, because I don't know anything about ship design and workings, and as a result, I found that I was unable to make the required paraphrasing (and condensing) of those details (located on Section 7, p. 1 of that document, with a little on Section 8, p. 3); that's all Greek to me. I also looked for a citation for that text in old issues of The Oregonian newspaper, which I am able to access and search with my library card. Although I found none, I did find several articles about the Portland, and I've added citations of some of those to the Wikipedia article — some as additional, back-up sources for existing citations, and some to add a few minor details. I hope I've addressed your concerns sufficiently. By the way, it would be great if your father has some old photos of the Portland that he'd be willing to upload. SJ Morg (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made a few more changes including adding a ref for the Maverick film and tweaking some of the text in the lead section. Also removed a few red links that were only linked to from this article. Trimmed the red links in the body of the article by almost half. I think it's probably fine as it is. There is one uncited tidbit in the Pop culture references section about the boat being seen in the Portlandia tv show opening scene. I don't doubt this is true and am OK with having it in the article, but know that these sections can be a source of debate in general. Dawnseeker2000 16:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Portlandia camio is fleeting and unimportant. It is also available on YouTube, and I chose not to cite it for copyright reasons. In the grand scheme of things, it can certainly be removed from the article. By way of education, is there a proper way for citing a video clip that is commonly avalable and ownership probably varifiable if the source for the video itself is questionable? Name Omitted (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's so nice when there are proper sources for everything we're looking for. I definitely understand those dilemmas. For videos I have just used the {{cite video}} template and include everything I can, but the last time I used a video as a source in an article was in the Corey Haim article two years ago. Dawnseeker2000 19:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Name Omitted and Dawnseeker2000, for a nice article and for helping to improve it and move it through DYK. Based on past experience, I decided to upload a slightly cropped version of the photo, in case whoever promotes this hook feels the tugboat is too small in the 100px thumbnail. I used it to replace the first version in the thumbnail at the top of this nomination page, but I've formatted it there so that it links to the uncropped version when clicked-on. Personally, I feel the uncropped one is fine for DYK, and I place it next to this comment, for easy comparison; the promoting editor can use either one. The cropping is not heavy, because the 100-year-old drawbridge in the background adds to the picture, in my opinion. Again, see the top of this nomination for the new cropped version (in thumbnail size only). SJ Morg (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)