Wikipedia:Peer review/Zong Massacre/archive1

Zong Massacre

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to turn this into a Featured Article. The topic is difficult and the sources used are quite specialist, so I'd appreciate advice on issues relating to the prose, clarity of the content and any MOS issues. Thanks, Celuici (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• The lead should generally devote at least one sentence to each section (not necessarily each subsection); that's the usual interpretation of WP:LEAD.
  • Done -- I've added a sentence covering the "... in modern culture" section – Celuici (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• "tons burden": link to Builder's Old Measurement
  • Done, although I would be grateful if you would review the change I made in this edit, since one of the image captions needs updating and I'm not sure how to describe the tonnage of ships. – Celuici (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "was" is right, "had" is wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• "While some historians have seen this as evidence of his lack of experience at navigation and command": I don't understand ... why wouldn't the lack of a previous command be evidence of lack of experience with command?
  • Yes, it is implied, and so I've changed the wording -- but I think it's worth mentioning his lack of experience explicitly, since it was an important issue in the legal proceedings and is often mentioned in the sources. – Celuici (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• "This may have had some influence on his later conduct.": What may have had influence, on what later conduct?
  • Done -- I've updated this sentence. – Celuici (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Otherwise, So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at Zong_Massacre#Massacre. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• On your changes ... I recommend against "claim for", since it's not supported by SOED or other BritEng dictionaries. "put in a claim for" would work. "had an important place in the commemoration of the bicentenary of abolition in 2007": Sometimes that's okay if the sources are trying to be really careful not to say too much, but some consider "was commemorated in ..." to be "stronger" writing. I'm not wild about this bit, it feels too speculative ... but I've got to move on, I'll leave this for someone else: "Sometimes these killings happened immediately in the presence of the surgeon himself. It is likely, therefore, that Collingwood already had experience of the murder of slaves, and this may have prepared him to participate in the massacre which occurred on the Zong." - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the additional comments. I've changed the sentences to "Sometimes these killings happened in the presence of the surgeon. It is likely, therefore, that Collingwood had already witnessed the mass-murder of slaves, and this may have prepared him to participate in the massacre which occurred on the Zong." The sentence about the 2007 commemorations has also been updated. Celuici (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • RE: 'Claim for': the full OED has 'To make a claim for' as a definition for the word 'claim' as a verb, and refers explicitly to claiminig for insurance in this instance. So I think we can go with that. Celuici (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Btw, I think either A-class or GAN would work as your next stop, when the peer review is done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• Just a note, but the lede really should be longer than it currently is, and should be divided into more evenly sized paragraphs; I doubt it would pass FA in its current state. For instance, you refer to Liverpool, but many readers might not have the foggiest idea where that is, and you refer to the year in which the massacre took place, but not the date. There's a lot more basic information that is contained in the article but is missing from the introduction. If you wished, message me and I could draft a longer introduction, although as this is your project, I do not wish to impose on your work here, which is otherwise very good! Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Done – I've expanded the lead and adjusted the structure. I think the first sentence could use a little more work though, but it's difficult to include all the information without making the lead hard to read. Thanks for your comments. Celuici (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Under "Fatal Voyage", your two images have bunched up on the right hand side; consider moving the map of the Caribbean to the left, for aesthetic purposes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Celuici (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)