Talk:Greenock stowaways

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Greenock stowaways/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Figfires (talk · contribs) 16:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. The prose is not clear and concise. The prose is extremely long and overly detailed. While I did enjoy learning a great deal about this topic, the amount of detail included is simply too great. The level of detail does not fall under the encyclopedic summary standards. Additionally, I saw numerous spelling and grammatical issues within the article including misspelled words, punctuation mistakes, and incorrect verb tense.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The article uses the word "says" a multitude of times instead of other alternatives that are much better suited for an encyclopedia article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. The article is verifiable and a list of references/bibliography has been presented at the bottom of the page.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). All references appear to be from reliable sources
2c. it contains no original research. Despite the article being long and overly detailed, it did not appear that original research took place.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No plagiarism or copyright violations from what I saw.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The main aspects of the topic are addressed throughout the article in their respective sections.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The article goes into unnecessary detail in almost every section and contains many firsthand accounts/quotes that are not required. The article does not follow summary style.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The article is not neutral and appears to be biased against the crew of the ship for most of the article. With the adjectives used in this article it creates tone issues.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article is pretty stable, although there is not much of a history. The article itself is a month old.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images have the proper licensing, copyright, and/or free use rationales listed on their respective pages.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All images are relevant to the article and have excellent captions.
7. Overall assessment. From what I have seen, the article needs to be copyedited as there are numerous spelling and grammar mistakes. Also, the article is overly detailed for the average wikipedia goer and does not follow summary style. Finally, the article has some unbalanced tone towards the crew of the ship. The tone should fix itself for the most part once the article follows summary style. The detail level issue is just my opinion. You may renominate at any time, but I would definitely recommend copy editing for spelling/grammar before you do so.

Article Issues[edit]

After reading through almost the entire article, I have decided to fail this due to multiple issues that warrant cleanup templates.

Red Links[edit]
  • I see a number of redlinks scattered throughout the article. These links should be removed as no page exists for them. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it just means that no page exists for them yet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I just don't like seeing links to articles that don't exist. FigfiresSend me a message! 17:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The community disagrees.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Words to Watch[edit]
  • I have seen the word "says" a multitude of times throughout the article. NEVER use said or says. There are plenty of other words that mean the same thing such as stated, mentioned, remarked, etc.. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SAID says "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." So it's fine per the GA criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unbalanced[edit]

The article is written in an unbalanced manner which doesn't follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It isn't to the level of Essay-like, but it certainly is biased in tone. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, perhaps. Any detail? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a plethora of firsthand encounters/quotes talking about how bad the crew was with very little neutral or in their favor. FigfiresSend me a message! 17:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does this reflect what most of the sources say?--Carabinieri (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carabinieri: Yes, the crew would appear to have made themselves almost universally unpopular even before they returne to port, and that, of course, is reflected in the sources. There is simply nothing nice to say, except, perhaps, what little has been said in it. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overly Detailed[edit]

I have given up on trying to point out all the issues as they are numerous and the article would have to undergo a major revision anyways in order for it to be acceptable. The article in its current state is overly detailed and does not fit the encyclopedic summary style. There should only be a moderate level of detail at most in a section. If you want extreme detail, a child article should be formed and it could discuss the topic in a much greater detail than in the parent article. FigfiresSend me a message! 02:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section[edit]

Repetitive Lead Text[edit]
  • In the first sentence of the lead, the year 1868 is mentioned twice. The sentence would be much better if you either removed "of 1868" from the bolded section or changed the second 1868 to "of that year".
Lead Clarification[edit]
  • Additionally, I would prefer the first sentence in the lead to have "Quebec, Canada" (with internal links) for clarification purposes are there are multiple Quebecs. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background Section[edit]

Internal Link Needed[edit]
  • In the first paragraph, Scotland should have an internal link as it is the first mention of it.FigfiresSend me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tense Issues[edit]
  • In the Stowaways section, it is stated "It appears that nine children originally stowed away on the Arran, but two were found and returned to port". That could be written to as "Originally, it appeared that nine children stowed away on the Arran..." which would flow much better. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That puts an extra word in, and a comma to break up the flow. A better suggestion would be to see if we can do away with "It appears" or perhaps "Nine children were believed to have stowed away on the Arran...." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation Issues[edit]
  • Also in the Stowaways section, it is currently "Seven others[3] ranging in age from 11 to 22 remained undiscovered". There should be a comma after others and 22. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the next sentence, you do not need a comma before the parentheses. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same sentence, you need a comma after David Jolly Brand. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the same sentence, you need another parenthesis after the citation on and Bernard. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Ill-treatment section, a sentence currently reads as "On 10 May the Arran[18]—which had been fighting its way through the ice-packs for sometime[16]—finally became stuck in an Ice field near St. George's Bay,[18] at Cape Anguille.[22] Other ships had been similarly caught". There should be a comma after May. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article Needed[edit]
  • In the Ill-treatment section, a sentence currently is "The stowaways had boarded the ship wearing only thin clothing, and by the time it had entered the North Atlantic the weather had become bitterly cold for both crew and stowaways". It should have the crew and the stowaways. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same section, a sentence reads as "The weather was poor and visibility worse because of fog and sleet". It should say the visibility. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that's the case in British English? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling[edit]

In the Arrival and marooning in Newfoundland section, Quebec is misspelled. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Return and Legal Proceedings Section[edit]

Punctuation Issue[edit]
  • A sentence: "From Quebec, too, on 10 June a crew member wrote to his family in Greenock[17][note 10] and described the boy's journey and the behaviour of the officers." should have boys' instead of boy's. FigfiresSend me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

  • @Figfires: I'm afraid you do not know what you are talking about, and your so-called "review" is an exercise in absolute incompetence. You've never written a good article and you do not appear to have ever even carried out a review before. This was certainly not the best article for you to cut your teeth on, but it is your responsibility on Wikipedia to undertake tasks which you then have the competency to carry out. You have failed in this responsibility. The article did not meet any of the quick-fail criteria, and the issues you have raised would certainly be fixable within seven days. Your inability to recognize this makes me question the remainder of your comments; some of which may, ironically, have a kernel of understanding to them, yet needles in haystacks are brought to mind. I suggest you go to the GA talk page, confess what you have done, and take guidance in future before embarrassing the project again. Incidentally, for the reasons above, I am also, according to policy, removing your misplaced templates from the article. Many thanks. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It at least met number 1, it is far from being a good article. At best, this is a C class article. To be honest, I expected the "entitled" response from you. Instead of responding in a civil manner, you resort to calling me incompetent which wikipedia explicitly says not to label others as because it is a personal attack. The prose quality isn't that great and article is quite bloated due to all the firsthand encounters/quotes. A decent number of those are not necessary and text before them could simply have the cited page number so people could find more detail if they want to. Also, the article needs a better lead section as the current lead is not detailed enough. The article also needs copy editing for spelling, verb tense, and punctuation issues (you shouldnt have removed that notice). Im not alone in the opinion that this is far from being ready. I am not going to spend time arguing with you, so if you feel I was completely wrong, simply renominate it and get another reviewer. FigfiresSend me a message! 17:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Figfires: H'mmm, well if you can double down on your incompetence, I suppose I can on my highlighting of it. You don't seem to see the irony in accusing me of personal attacks while in the same breath saying you "expected" such a result. That certainly suggests you intended provoking such a response in the first place. And criterion 1 does not apply except to articles that are so poorly written that they clearly fail; this clearly does not apply. And you're "not alone" in your opinion? BS. You are attempting to justify the unjustifiable, and merely look the poorer as a result. May I suggest, again, that you actually write some articles before continuing with your attempts at reviewing? Although demonstrating a basic understanding of the criteria would be a start. Many thanks, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you don't agree with what I said at all, simply renominate it immediately and get another reviewer. Good day. FigfiresSend me a message! 18:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are[edit]

Harvard errors in the references-block, just dropping a note:-) And, a very interesting read. ∯WBGconverse 04:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not missing something; there's a sentence The Spectator took advantage of the soft-treatment of the two officers to indulge in some casual racism at the Scots' expense which is sourced to the newspaper piece itself. Unsure about how that ought be he case. This's pretty much an accusation and need to be sourced to a rigid tertiary source. ∯WBGconverse 04:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in my eyes, the sentence There was extensive coverage in English newspapers too, including: the London Standard, the Cheshire Observer, Liverpool Mercury, Royal Cornwall Gazette, Manchester Weekly Times, The Leicester Chronicle and Mercury, and The Huddersfield Chronicle and West Yorkshire Advertiser. is too detailed. Can the names be removed and the citations bunched? ∯WBGconverse 04:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and was buried in an unmarked grave in St Mary Extra churchyard seems way too detailed. Died in 1913 and buried is enough? ∯WBGconverse 04:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenock_stowaways&oldid=1207437517"