Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916

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 18:16, 6 August 2007.

Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916[edit]

This is an article I have been working on since April and just recently found time to complete (my first FAC that's not horror film or Star Wars!). The article covers the background and impact of a series of shark attacks along the coast of New Jersey in 1916. No major issues were brought up during the short period at peer review and minor comments generated by an automated bot have been addressed. I haven't nominated an article at FAC since January, so if something procedural has changed that I'm not aware of, I apologize in advance. Thanks in advance for your comments, criticism, advice, or support. Dmoon1 07:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Excellent article. I have a couple comments but nothing that prevents me supporting:
    • …but scholars believe that the increased presence of sharks and humans in the water led to the attacks in 1916. I don't see any mention of increased numbers of sharks in the water later in the article.
    • The first paragraph of "Background" lacks context until the end. Perhaps move some mention of increased bathing near the beginning?
    • The second paragraph of "Background" has some irrelevant details about the American psyche and Woodrow Wilson. What do we care where he was considering having his summer residence (even if it is in New Jersey)? If the US isolationism somehow drove people to go into the sea, then including it would be fine, but I don't see any more relevance here than mentioning Boeing being founded.
    • Thanks for your comments. I have done my best to address them: the increased number of people in the water in 1916 is discussed in the background section and the number of people relative to the likelihood of shark attack (plus an increased number of sharks) is in the section on identifying the shark. I have revised the background section somewhat per your suggestions. I removed the part of isolationism and Wilson, but kept mention of WWI and added a blurb about U-boats, since this is a factor later on in the article (some people thought the U-boats were causing the shark attacks, and later U-boats were caricatured in cartoons as sharks). Dmoon1 17:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written and well-referenced. WesleyDodds 04:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One issue The map shows a 43 mile distance between the first and second attack (Beach Haven to Spring Lake) and the article says 55 miles. Why the discrepancy? It's not like a mile or two difference... Also the map indicates 36 miles between Spring Lake and Sandy Hook and the article implies 30 miles; though the article could be saying 30 miles to the base rather than the tip of Sandy Hook. If this hand-drawn map is incorrect, it should be fairly easy to create an updated, computer-drawn map with the right distances... Otherwise this is FA quality easily, and I would support it if that issue was resolved. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My distance measurements came from Fernicola's Twelve Days of Terror. The distance between Beach Haven and Spring Lake is 45 miles in his book, 55 is a typo (p. 14). Fernicola claims Matawan is 30 miles north of Spring Lake (p. 33). The map is from 1916 and I don't know how either Fernicola or the map maker came up with their distances. An updated computer-generated map would be wonderful, but unfortunately I don't have the technical know-how to do this. Dmoon1 06:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If 55 is a typo, it should be fixed in the article. I could handle 45 being about 43 and 30 being kinds sorta close to 36, but a 12 mile discrepancy seemed a little odd. Also, there are some great mapmakers at Wikipedia. One, User:Kmusser did a fantastic map for an article I worked on, Plymouth Colony (see FAC below). I will drop a line at his talk page and see if he would be willing to take on this map. And you might want to get in touch with him too to explain more details about what the map should look like. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I corrected the typo as soon as you pointed it out. Dmoon1 06:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Kmusser has now graciously created a great map, IMO, to replace the period map used in the article. Dmoon1 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is good! --A cool night green owl 16:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support—needs some tweaking, but I'll try to help with that. Dmoon's back :) — Deckiller 06:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing I noticed WRT commas: I've always been told commas go after conjunctions (between two independent clauses); however, this varies by region, so feel free to revert that. — Deckiller 07:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the copy-edit. Your edits seem fine to me. I went over the remaining sections where you left off and tightened the prose a bit more. Thanks again. Dmoon1 08:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—looks good. — Deckiller 09:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks again! (I have addressed the two editor notes you made, BTW). Dmoon1 09:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just read it and was about to nominate, then saw it had been nominated already. Good job! Separa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Separa (talk • contribs)
    • Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 18:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as with the newbie above me, I was wanting to nominate it myself, when I saw it. -- Zanimum 17:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; a large number of time-consuming WP:MOS fixes are needed; I left sample edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, this is something that's changed since I was last here. I've replaced the hyphens between year and page number ranges with en-dashes and have placed non-breaking spaces between the remaining units of measurement. Have I missed anything? Do non-breaking spaces belong in page numbers, e.g., should I write p. 2 or p. 2 in the citations? Thanks. Dmoon1 21:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now fully Support Great article. I will drop a thank you note at Kmusser's talk page for a great job on the map too! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm not generally taken by sharks (its always shark week on sky), but was impressed by the context and insight lended by the "Background" section. A very interesting article. Ceoil 14:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 00:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written. Epbr123 15:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jersey_Shore_shark_attacks_of_1916&oldid=1078801835"