Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Carissa

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Carissa[edit]

Article has been extensively copyedited in past several days, plus some new information added. Article is otherwise stable, is a GA, and has undergone a peer review. Comments were attended to, most of them minor. --EngineerScotty 22:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all pictures are public domain and illustrate the article well. EngineerScotty has put a ton of work in, and he and I have made every effort to meet or exceed FA criteria. -Big Smooth 22:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and please note that this is a self-nomination. -Big Smooth 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for failing to note that. --EngineerScotty 22:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as I would like to have learned more about this ship's history/crew/endeavors prior to its wrecking. As the article stands, I'd be inclined to support its FA if the subject was the crash and not the ship itself. I do understand, of course, that the crash's notability may be higher than that of the ship itself, especially if you are from the United States. I don't think it is reasonable for 75% of the article to address the ship prior to wreckage, but perhaps 5 to 10% would be more appropriate—only the infobox right now speaks of information independant of the crash. BigNate37(T) 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added section about vessel, and a bit about the crew. Before the wreck, of course, this was an anonymous freighter that nobody outside of the shipping business knew about; and wouldn't be notable if it weren't for the wreck. I'm willing to support a move to a better title, though I'd point out that there are other articles on shipwrecks which take the name of the ship. --EngineerScotty 01:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like the additions about the pre-wrecked vessel and readily concede that the ship lacked encyclopedic notability before the crash. I would like to ask whether the use of the word tonnage is intended this way; perhaps you meant displacement? Also, you refer to tons but the other units you express are SI; are these tonnes, imperial tons, U.S. customary tons? I'm afraid I'm not familiar at all with non-SI units. Oh, and upon further reading I see many different sytems used for units. The engine power is in bhp, fuel in gallons (l), dimensions in metres (ft), etc. Perhaps the MoS should be consulted; would you consider the ship Panamanian for this purpose? I'm not sure what units are used there, or whether international naval endeavours use a different system. BigNate37(T) 06:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree in principle... one problem is that when discussing nautical affairs, all sorts of unit systems are used; it is still commonplace to use horsepower, tons, nautical miles/knots, and all sorts of other non-SI units. I've generally reported the units as expressed in the primary sources, converting to SI when convenient. More SI conversions can be added, but tomorrow... I'm off to bed for the night. :) --EngineerScotty 06:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To add a bit more info, now that I've researched the issue some more. "Tonnage", as given here, is a measurement of a ship's cargo volume, not its weight/displacement. What sort of "ton" isn't specified; since the source for the measurement is the USGC, my guess is it's a "measurement ton", equal to 40 cubic feet, or 1.1326 m³. I could not find a source for the displacement (which corresponds to the weight) of the ship, though I've seen estimates for the weight of the remaining stern section. --EngineerScotty 21:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I'm happy to support this article for FA status; you two have put in a lot of work and it shows. BigNate37(T) 00:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. You have paid attention to FA criteria and it shows. Some minor comments:
    • Some main sections are short; perhaps you've already looked at options to combine them.
    • The term "motor vessel" is confusing for someone who doesn't know much about ships, but "M/V", which redirects to cargo ship, is never linked to in the article. The best place for it would be in the bold ship name, but I think that is considered poor form...?
    • "nm" is better spelled out as nautical miles. I see it as nanometres, and I thought that was an awfully precise distance from shore. :-)
    • Suggest notating PDF references as such, using template {PDF} for example.
    • I checked three references for correspondence with the article and they checked out. For the longer reference documents, page numbers would have been advisable.
    • Who knew they did assessments of the economic loss from 4-8 plovers being killed?! Outriggr 04:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added the {{PDFlink}} template to all the citations, with the size of the files. Good suggestion. -Big Smooth 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Happy to see a nominator appears to have read the FA criteria. I'm confident that any issues raised during the FAC will be addressed. Sandy 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Agree with Sandy. Nice to see when editors know what they're doing. Special commendation for covering an environmental topic. More of that, please! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/New_Carissa&oldid=70584967"