Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Midshipman/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:30, 7 August 2010 [1].

Midshipman[edit]

Midshipman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Kirk (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-nominating Midshipman for FA status because I feel its an important military rank with an interesting history. Based on comments from the second FAC review I redid a bunch of text which was too close to the source text, and I expanded some of the sections. I look forward to your comments and suggestions. Kirk (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, but external link to http://gr.bvdep.com/version-1/gr.asp doesn't work. Ucucha 14:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It works fine for me, but I have access to the site - Le Grand Robert requires you to login. Maybe I should flag that link somehow?Kirk (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, it should probably be labeled "login required" or so. Ucucha 15:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done I put that in parens after the ref, but I have no idea what the standard is here. Alternately, I could just use the print reference. Kirk (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Refs 32, 40, 51 "L.R. Hamersley & Co": what is this source? It is undefined, and a click on the name reveals nothing.
  • Ref 61: Publisher is "Connexions direct"
  • Retrieval dates are not necessary in the bibliography, since these books exist independently of the online versions.

Otherwise, sources look OK, no further problems. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done - The Hamersley ref didn't work becuase the #CITEREF paramenter generated by the harvard template was broken because the reference had no author; Worldcat says the author is Hamersley, so I used it instead. Fixed the publisher and removed the accessdates from the bibliography. Kirk (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment Various comments below. Overall the article reads well. Mirokado (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advisor.js gives 34 suggestions for tidying up. I'm not sure this is a requirement for FA, but it can do no harm to make the wiki source tidy... (don't "tidy up" filenames though!)
  • ref 80: Defense Act 1990 should be Defence Act 1990
  • recognised/recognized both spellings appear in the article text and realized appears once. I would recommend the British spelling (recognised, realised) for this article as the origin of the rank was the Royal Navy, but as long as the article text is consistent I won't complain. (In suggesting that I must mention that I am British.) Spelling in quotes and references is independent of the spelling chosen for the article.
  • Done (Using American Spelling). Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "substantive", "non-substantive" occur in two sections. Although I knew roughly what is meant I did look it up for more details, so a brief explanation or link would perhaps be helpful. Military rank#Types of rank is one possibility.
  • Done - went with your suggestion for substantive, removed non-substantive and noticed officer cadet was improperly capitalized. Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rating" and "rank": since many (including me) have a rather vague and informal understanding of these two, distinctive usages of each should be explained and/or linked at first use. See for example Naval rating.
  • Done - linked both first uses to their respective articles. Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entry: "for 40 students between 13 and 16" --> for 40 students aged between 13 and 16.
  • Entry: "The rating of midshipman-by-order, or midshipman ordinary, was used specifically for graduates of the Royal Naval College, to distinguish them from midshipmen who had served aboard a ship, and were paid less than midshipmen." -- "than midshipmen" does not make it clear who is being paid less than whom.
Thanks. Now it is clear what is meant, I suggest this rewording ("aboard ship" and simplified): "The rating of midshipman-by-order, or midshipman ordinary, was used specifically for graduates of the Royal Naval College, to distinguish them from midshipmen who had served aboard a ship, and midshipmen ordinary were paid less than midshipmen." --> "The rating of midshipman-by-order, or midshipman ordinary, was used specifically for graduates of the Royal Naval College, to distinguish them from midshipmen who had served aboard ship, who were paid more." Mirokado (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Thanks for the wording.Kirk (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social background and uniform: The redlink to "young gentleman" is a bit distracting. Are you planning an article for this?
  • Yes, but I've reviewed several ship FAC with red links so I don't think its a big deal. Kirk (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a blocking issue I agree. There are two pages linking to it so it is not merely an invention of this page. I would quite like to see at least a plan to fulfill links from a featured article, though. Perhaps a comment on the talk page or a list somewhere of articles needed by the Military history WikiProject? Mirokado (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll do the engineer stuff, then I'll create the stub for that article unless some other blocking stuff comes up. Kirk (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - the article currently has no red links. Kirk (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided a well-sourced article for Young gentlemen. Thanks! Mirokado (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social background and uniform: "chances at promotion" --> chances of promotion
  • Royal Navy from 1836: Although you will find plenty of usages of "the HMS Illustrious" or whatever, this is incorrect, since HMS already contains an article, His or Her Majesty's Ship. See for example "Her place at Dartmouth was taken by HMS Prince of Wales" in HMS Britannia (1820). A subsequent reference to "the Illustrious" is OK (depending on context). You will need to check for all occurrences. I see elsewhere in this article "the" is already omitted so this is a question of consistency too. Incidentally, just as examples, "the USS Ronald Reagan" is correct since USS, United States Ship, contains no article, as is "the HMS Challenger Library" which is referring to the library.
    • Drive-by butt-in: I've been told off several times IRL for "using" 'the' in association with a HM (or variant) ship name, regardless of the presence or absence of the prefix. I've been taught to say/write "HMAS Vampire sailed..." "Vampire sailed", or "The destroyer Vampire sailed..." (in the last case, 'the' marries up to 'destroyer), although your milage may vary. -- saberwyn 04:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - I went through and removed the articles from the ship names. Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine now, thanks. Mirokado (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Royal Navy from 1836: "officer training of military and engineering" is clumsily phrased - apart from improving the grammar you need to clarify here that the branches were united (at least that is what I understand from the later phrase "re-segregating the executive and engineering branches" which is better expressed).
  • Engineers were trained separately before 1905 and had their own midshipman (E) rank, along with other branches such as medical and supply; I will add a sentence or two. Kirk (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - I added a couple of sentences about RN engineers.Kirk (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is much clearer now. Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • United States Navy from 1845: "In 1882, Congress eliminated the distinction between engineer and naval cadets, and designated the student officers as naval cadets" This distinction has not been previously mentioned, so the reader asks "what distinction?" etc. It looks as if this is either irrelevant or should have been mentioned (different titles for each?) earlier in the discussion of the USN).
  • They also trained engineers separately with a separate rank structure but in 1882 they stopped training the cadets separately. Student engineer officers were called engineering cadets. I'll come up with something better and add it to the article. Kirk (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - I added a couple of sentences about USN engineers.Kirk (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also much clearer now. Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modern usage--United States Navy and Marine Corps: "Currently each member of Congress and the Vice President can have five appointees attending the Naval Academy at any time." To a British reader this implies an astonishing degree of political influence over naval recruitment. I think this phrase and particularly the word "appointees" need to be reconsidered so the reader will understand how naval Officer Cadets are initially selected. (If they really are political appointees then it needs to be clear that this is not just careless wording.) A similar phrase occurred earlier in the article referring to previous practice, this may need a similar clarification.
  • Yes, there is an astonishing degree of political influence over naval recruitment in the US; however, an appointment just means you can apply and only about 1/5 of appointees actually are accepted, that last bit is worth mentioning. Kirk (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if that will clarify the process. Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - added a few sentence for clarification. Kirk (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This para is fine now. Thanks for the careful rewrite. Mirokado (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Royal Australian Navy: For consistency (with ADFA etc), you should probably say "Single Service Training (SST)" since SST is mentioned later.
  • Royal Australian Navy: What is "Shore Establishment"? Is is the same as Royal Australian Naval College, a single different training establishment or a general term for several onshore training units?
    • Drive-by butt-in: 'Shore establishment' is a catchall term used by the RAN for any naval base or facility. May I suggest that it be pluralised and dropped to lower case; different midshipmen would go to different establishments for their specification's relevant training. -- saberwyn 04:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done I also wiki linked the term to stone frigate. Kirk (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pakistan Navy: 18 months. There may be other cases where number and unit need a non-breaking space as separator.
  • Done
  • Other countries:
"In a modern French dictionary" do you mean "In a modern French-English dictionary"?
"but both ... are equivalent to ..." should be "but both ... are also equivalent to ..."
-- called "aspirante" in both languages -- may be more consistent with other sentences as "called aspirante in both languages"?
  • Comparative ranks and insignia: Have you considered other formats for this information? The current table is rather deep and the alternative ranks for a country not well separated. For example (these are just suggestions):
  • Put multiple ranks for a country on separate lines, there is lots of space for that and the rank column can be narrower
  • Have six columns with the first three for romance languages and the next three for others
  • Have a gallery with country (in bold, perhaps on a separate line) and ranks in the caption for each image
  • If the rank alternatives are on one line, use a {{dot}} or · similar · separator, as in various list templates
  • Done I went with six columns using some dots for separation - you might need to link to an example of using a gallery the way you are describing. Kirk (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. No longer a blocking issue, but I think this still needs some refinement. I will try to prepare some examples in a sandbox next weekend, no time before then unfortunately. Mirokado (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have prepared an alternative table at: User:Mirokado/Alternative_text#Four_columns (will be removed: see this edit instead) with the following updates:
merge Country and rank columns, country name in bold on first line
nbsp in rank names in lists, so the list breaks after a dot
nbsp between italic and ref, so the last italic letter does not collide with the ref
no space before and space after {{dot}}, see dot documentation
link to real navy article names when we have a pipe anyway, to avoid redirects
I suggest (only) you take these changes which I think improve the presentation of the table. I had a brief look at a gallery, but I don't think that would work as well. Mirokado (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that DASHbot has further edited this carefully prepared example so you will need to revert that edit when taking the changes. Perhaps I will just change the articles in future. Mirokado (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I implemented those changes - I think it looks better than the six column version. Kirk (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I miss any reference to the Midshipman in literature (or other arts.) The most obvious candidate is Mr. Midshipman Hornblower and no doubt other similar novel series start with their protagonist as Midshipman.
  • As I say in the heading, this article is about the naval rank. I'd be willing to add a wikilink in the header to Mr. Hornblower; in the previous FAC review I recall the consensus was Midshipman (Literature) should be a separate article. Kirk (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine and the separate article later is a good idea. Mirokado (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention of those who have been awarded the highest military awards for bravery as Midshipmen. I'm not suggesting an attempt at a comprehensive list, but it should be clear that Midshipmen were not just trainees but involved in the thick of battle, and that they have at times shown bravery beyond their years and experience. A notable example is Charles Davis Lucas, who saved his ship by carrying a live 24lb shell to the side and throwing it overboard. He was awarded the first Victoria Cross. See this Times article:
  • Sailor who won first Victoria Cross is recalled 150 years on, London: timesonline.co.uk, 2004-07-21, retrieved 2010-07-20
  • I'm at a loss here - I've been trying to avoid these details about specific midshipmen and unfortunately none of my secondary sources mention awards but I agree with what you are saying. Kirk (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you like I can try to propose a sentence or two with references, which you could then use as you see fit. I've now made Lucas a wikilink: that and the Maritime Museum description refer to him as a Mate at the time, so more checking is in any case necessary. Mirokado (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could check the Navy List, but according to the article it sounds like he held the permanent rank of midshipman, and the acting rank of mate at the time of the action mentioned - in more modern sense he was an acting sub-lieutenant so he's probably a not the best example. I'll keep looking; there should be a WWI or WWII midshipman who won a Victoria Cross. Kirk (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC
In World War I, two midshipmen won the Victoria Cross: George Leslie Drewry & Wilfred St Aubyn Malleson. I have found zero midshipmen who have won the Medal of Honor. Kirk (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I added them to the article. Kirk (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very nicely written. Thanks for that. (I added a comma and space.) Mirokado (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modern usage--United States Navy and Marine Corps: This para needs some attention:
Students at the United States Naval Academy are appointed to the rank of midshipman, United States Navy, or midshipman, United States Marine Corps, while students in the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC) are appointed as midshipman, United States Navy Reserve, or midshipman, United States Marine Corps Reserve. Students at the United States Merchant Marine Academy are appointed as midshipman, United States Merchant Marine Reserve, United States Naval Reserve.(ref) The student body at the US Naval Academy is the Brigade of Midshipmen(ref) and the student body at the US Merchant Marine Academy is the Regiment of Midshipmen.(ref)
The ranks are difficult to separate from surrounding text as they have embedded commas and wikilinks. I think you need some typographical assistance here, even if it is a convention local to this para. Try setting each rank in italics for example. In addition, "midshipman, United States Merchant Marine Reserve, United States Naval Reserve" looks wrong to someone unfamiliar with American ranks even if it is right (I've no idea) since the basic rank is qualified by two services. Consider adding something like ", thus a reserve in two services" if this is correct. Also, both "United States Navy Reserve" and "United States Naval Reserve" are mentioned. Something has to be wrong, I think! Mirokado (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone else changed that recently which I attempted to clean up; I'll do what I can. Kirk (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - i used bold since its the article name. Also, its Navy Reserve - it was renamed from Naval Reserve in 2005 (and wrong on the Merchant Marine Web site), and I looked on the Navy site and its U.S. Navy Reserve, Merchant Marine Reserve. Kirk (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is better and the marine reserve rank followed by its reference is now clear, but the sentence is still a bit scrappy. No longer a blocking issue for me, but perhaps I will comment again later. What do other reviewers think? Mirokado (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all of your suggestions; is their anything else I need to do to earn your support? Kirk (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you too for your willingness to change what was already a well-written article. I'm supporting now. The only outstanding question (minor, not affecting my support) is the lots-of-ranks para mentioned immediately above. Mirokado (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked that section again after adding a reference to the NROTC stuff; back to italics for the ranks. Kirk (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think that is better now. Mirokado (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The major issues I had were dealt with below. If there's anything else, it'll be a tweak here or there that I can do and not waste the nominator's time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article reads well, I just have some comments and see no barrier to a support vote once they are addressed.
  • Lede:
    "In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where they were berthed. During the 18th century the rating was also used to refer to candidate for a commission, and the old rating slowly died out." Rating, rating. Four times in two sentences. Can you cut that back with synonyms? Also, I'm not certain if this article is written in British or US English, but you are using the word "rating" both as a single and a plural noun in the same sentence and it is a bit jarring.
    "By the height of the Age of Sail, during the Napoleonic era (1793–1815)" It strikes me that this phrasing is much too redundant. Possibly the first clause of the sentence could be lost without any trouble to the reader.
    The lede is slightly long with respect to the body. It could stand to lose about 2 sentences in my view. Nothing hangs in the balance if you don't, as with all of this, it is merely advice.
    "romance languages" should be a link to "Romance languages", mind the capital.
  • Apprentice officers
I find the chronology of the phasing out of the original rating a bit confusing. It was phased out beginning in 1794, and after that, all midshipmen were officer candidates, yet it seems those holding the rating who did not aspire to a commission served as late as 1822. Visions of old men in kiddie uniforms dance in my head. Perhaps a rephrasing is in order?
That's exactly what happened! One midshipman was promoted to Lieutenant when he was in his 50s (I assume as a courtesy so he could collect half-pay), but the 25+ year old midshipman wasn't exactly common.Kirk (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"volunteer boys". An odd phrase! Perhaps say instead that the boys were sent by their families.
As a thought, you might want to mention Peter Heywood and William IV of the United Kingdom, both of whom were midshipmen in their time (Heywood, somewhat disastrously so). Both articles are FAs so sourcing should not be an issue.
I mentioned William IV, and Heywood in the notes; its a slippery slope to start mentioning famous people who were midshipmen since every British and US naval officer of note was a midshipman (obviously, with exceptions...then I have to start mentioning all the exceptions...). Kirk (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The work consisted of tasks normally assigned to seamen and to officers." Many people reading this might conclude that they were expected to do everything that happens aboard a ship. While of course that would be excellent training, I would imagine that there were tasks that were not normally done either by seamen or by officers and thus were not done by midshipmen? If not, say so.
"and the average age of a midshipman was between 15 and 22." That's a heck of a range for the average. Perhaps, "the typical age of a midshipman was between ..."? I don't have the facts before me, so I may be guessing what you meant incorrectly.
"In seamanship, he was" The last noun to which "he" might refer is "captains". Surely not?
I would suggest giving a modern day equivalent for the money mentioned in the article, using measuringworth.com or some such. You need only do this once, and it should be cited to that site. See Woodes Rogers for an example of this. (giving a shoutout to another of my FAs, sorry)
"two parallel roles" I'm sure this phrase gave you trouble, and I am trying to think of a better one. Let's both work on it.
"midshipman was listed as a rank of warrant officer" Listed where?
"teenagers". This is one of my pet peeves. The word "teenager" is 1930s coinage, give or take a nickel, and I really feel it is anachronistic to apply it to anything earlier. Use your own judgement though.
Cadet officers: Frankly, I'd chop the introductory paragraph entirely.
"executive branch" You've lost me on this one. I think of "executive branch" as the part of the government that isn't legislative or judicial. Also, can a time frame be put into place for this paragraph?
Please watch for consistency in capitalisation of Navy. I see a lower case usage I am not sure is intentional.
Osborne. I think there would be no harm in mentioning who donated the site of the Naval College and why he didn't want to spend time there after his mother died, it is fairly widely known.
"A new preparatory school was opened at Royal Naval College, Osborne initially consisting of two years at Osborne and two years at Dartmouth as cadets, later four years at Dartmouth, followed by approximately 3 years of sea duty as midshipmen prior to promotion to sub-lieutenant." This sentence needs tweaking, right now the school consists of time. And is this a preparatory school in the UK sense, that is, for preteens? Additionally, sub-lieutenant could probably use a link.
"In 1905, a new college was completed on shore to replace Britannia, which was named Britannia Royal Naval College." I imagine the school was given the name, but the sentence is ambiguous.
"opposition to the scheme". The only thing you've said about the scheme is that it called for common entry, which was maintained, so the reader is probably a bit confused about now about what was opposed.
"special entry scheme" The reader doesn't know what that is. Also, A level should be linked.

I will do the USA part and the remainder of the article a bit later. Well done. I like the images too.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The rest of these I'll work on over the weekend. Kirk (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good responses on those. Here are a few more to ruin your weekend:
  • "Midshipman began to mean passed midshipman at this time," Strategic use of quotation marks would be helpful here.
  • ""ensign" wikilink for sure.
    "admitted to the academy" I would capitalise "Academy". If it gets boring, you can always say USNA, as long as you've mentioned the abbreviation somewhere!
    Were those undergoing officer training during WWII in the USNR also midshipmen?
    " joining the Navy as graduates" For the benefit of us Yanks, you may wish to explain, graduates from what?
    "and a broadening week spent with different areas of the Royal Navy." After dismissing the possibility that this is where they finally meet broads, I'm totally at sea.
    "president may nominate an unlimited number of children of career military personel for up to 100 appointments " I'm not sure this is completely clear to the reader. In addition, is this 100 per year or 100 at any given time at Annapolis? President is generally capitalized, btw.
  • "Gordon's Bay, near Simonstown" Wikilink away. It might also be helpful if the reader was told that both are in the Cape Town area.
  • "translate uneasily to midshipman" Umm, I'm not sure (shifts in seat) (averts gaze) but maybe "roughly" is a better adverb?
  • "By restricting the officer corps ... " Somewhere in this paragraph, early, mention you are discussing France.

That's all I got. I'll look in after the weekend or when you let me know. Good treatment of a broad topic, I can see why you have such a large bibliography.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made a bunch of changes; the measuringworth suggestion was excellent and I aim to write this in American English as much as possible. I decided if readers wanted to know more about the Selborne-Fisher scheme they could just read the wiki-linked article but I may add another sentence there for clarity. Thanks for your many wording suggestions (I hated the copy-edited 'uneasily' for one) but I have no idea what to do with 'parallel roles'... it was more of a side step which happened to pay much better. Kirk (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems worthy of promotion. As for the side steps, aren't there terms that are used, military or civilian, for when you take a sideways career step which pays well but is not necessarily a step up? We don't always have to reinvent the wheel, sometimes just go to the tire store.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous images forced to a size lower than the default, and why is there bolding in the "Comparative ranks and insignia" section? Also, the images should be staggered to avoid white space. More importantly, does no one review for MOS issues anymore? Please secure a MOS review of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Comments from another reviewer) Well the bolding in "Comparative ranks and insignia" was suggested by me as part of several updates to the presentation of that table, and is to highlight the country for each part of the table, thus functioning a bit like a low-level heading that does not appear in the table of contents. Italics would not work since the ranks themselves are italicised and when suggesting that format I did not think that leaving the country in plain text would sufficiently guide the reader's eye. I would be delighted if anyone can suggest further improvements to that table though.
If by the "numerous images" you mean the rank insignia, I think it would destroy the layout to have every image appearing 200px wide or whatever. The size is required in {{Triple image}} and the examples there use 60px as here. Other insignia harmonise with those triple sizes nicely. I was quite happy with the sizes chosen by the author (or whoever.) — Mirokado (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can get someone to do a MOS review of the article (which as I mentioned at the top, was already done once). Regarding the image sizes, they are that way so they fit, and the triple image template probably is what puts in the whitespace. Kirk (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the Malaysia image and removed the sizing on the commonwealth images but the South Africa image is really big, not sure what to do about that. I think one of the German images has some white in the image, I'll see if I can fix that. Kirk (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MOSBOLD and WP:MOS#Images; there is no reason I can discern for that bolding, and the image layout and sizing needs work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the bolding; it makes distinguishing between the two lines much easier. Blindly following the MOS isn't always the best solution. The image layout does need work though, especially in the "Modern usage" section. Perhaps you could gather the "Other Commonwealth nations" insignias and put them into a gallery at the bottom of the section?  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Images Image licences look OK, but File:Midshipman.PNG would be better to have author signature rather than just "me". In the Canada box, why is Naval Cadet in Roman, when all the other ranks in the table are Italic? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - Fixed the author, added italics to Canada, put the images in a gallery which looks a lot better now. Anything else? Kirk (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also removed the bold face per SandyGeorgia's comments. Kirk (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The captions in the Germany cell were forcing some whitespace in the triple image, so I made the images a little bigger; I can change it back if others thing its too big. Kirk (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Midshipman/archive3&oldid=1078803378"