Wikipedia:Peer review/Fore River Shipyard/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fore River Shipyard[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I just recently expanded this article and I wanted to see if others would be willing to tear it apart and correct my mistakes. Normally, I would ask for it to be reviewed at GA-quality, but it would be nice if it could be reviewed for FA-quality (so, feel free to point out anything that might help, if you are familiar with those processes), as I can easily tackle anything pointed out here. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria
  • Lead's a bit on the long side for the length of the article
  • Lots of repeated wikilinks - see WP:OVERLINK
    • I tried to make sure that it only appeared once, so let me know if it is still there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, still - for example, Watson's name twice in consecutive paragraphs. You might find this script helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I was under the impression that section breaks reset this rule. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure to italicize ship names in all captions
  • Date for O-Class image?
  • WWII image caption shouldn't end in period, and use the correct name of the monument in the Kilroy caption
  • You seem to like the word "also" a lot, at one point concluding a trio of "also" sentences with "the yard also also built" - try cutting down on those, and definitely don't double them. Same applies to "additionally", and avoid "Additionally, the yard also"-type constructions. There's several instances of "including"/"included" and "in order to" as well; seek variety in your phrasings.
  • File:JapanFirstSubmarines.jpg needs US PD tag
    • I have no idea what you mean, as it has been on the image for years. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only licensing tag present says "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States". Nikkimaria (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:O_type_submarines_at_Boston.jpg is sourced to a deleted file - is there an original source?
    • Do you want me to request its undeletion? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's a Navy image, there should be an original source somewhere, but I don't know whether the original file included that source or not, so unfortunately I don't know whether undeletion would be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I couldn't find it on Google, so I just requested its undeletion on Commons. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Fore_River_gantry_cranes_circa_1922.jpg should use original not upload date; same with File:USS_Northampton_CLC-1_-_0412511.jpg
  • All Navsource links, like that used to source File:Muscle_Shoals_AGM-19.jpg, appear to be broken
    • Two of the three links to that site work, and I don't know what's up with the other one, as I never uploaded that image. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why link US in infobox, particularly when Quincy itself isn't linked?
  • I suggest trying to read the article aloud - while it might feel silly, it will help to eliminate many grammar, flow, and clarity issues. For example, reading out loud should highlight a problem with the first sentence of the last lead paragraph
  • "The shipyard itself can trace its beginnings" - "itself" isn't needed unless there's something to contrast it with, which you haven't done (at least not clearly). And presumably the shipyard is not sentient enough to compile its history ;-)
    • Fixed, although I think I wrote it at the time to distinguish between the yard and the company (as in later years there is a bit of a difference in operation between the two). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after a man approached him about it" - this seems odd; someone just randomly walked up and said "hey, build an engine"? Or was he noted as an area inventor before that?
  • "Work on the engine began in 1884, and continued into 1885, when it was deemed a financial failure, and Watson decided to work with his business partner Frank O. Wellington on ship building, creating the Fore River Engine Company" - too many commas, too many clauses. There are several instances of this type of issue.
    • Fixed, and I thought I was done with being comma-crazy, from the days of my youth. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "work with his business partner Frank O. Wellington", then in the next paragraph "Watson and his business partner Frank O. Wellington" - check for other instances of repetition. Also later in the sentence: "after realizing the profitability of the enterprise after building". Reducing your wordiness should help to solve some of these.
  • Enough prose comments for now, but this needs considerable smoothing out in that respect
  • "soon an order came in for the seven-masted Thomas W. Lawson. This was immediately followed by an order for the six-masted William L. Douglas" - why is one of these italicized and the other not?
    • Fixed, as I think they must have been written in two runs, so I wasn't consistent on them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't link common terms like United States
  • Ranges should use endashes. If you want to head for FAC, you'll likely need to read up on the convolutions of the WP:MOS
  • Provide conversions between metric and imperial, where possible. Also consider providing dollar values in modern values (per inflation) where feasible
  • Skipping ahead to references...Consider columning the Notes, providing a separate heading for the bibliography (I'm assuming?) at the bottom, and move the Further reading to after cited sources per WP:LAYOUT
    • I'll do that in the future, although I forgot what the code is for this stuff. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that iUniverse is a self-publisher, what makes that source reliable?
    • No clue, as that pre-dates my work on this page, so I have gone ahead and removed it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For FAC citation formatting will need much greater consistency. Sometimes your citations are templated, sometimes not; you italicize the Globe in one citation then not the next; some books have locations while others don't; etc
    • A lot of the citations were holdovers from the original article, so I'm going to clean that up now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very very heavy reliance on that first source - be prepared to defend that at FAC if not at GAN
    • Noted, although any more research would require I spend a day in Quincy, and I really have no reason to go up there at this time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a reliable source? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the first one, and the second one uses the DANFS and Bethlehem's own statistics, as cited at the bottom of the shipbuilding lists page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Fore_River_Shipyard/archive1&oldid=593996792"