Talk:Ellen Southard/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 22:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm reviewing this article. Note: I'm using this review for the GA Recruitment Centre, so I'll try to explain more of what I do than usual. Should be fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to do this! Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 11:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's my practice to fill out a template, which gives an overview of my first impressions of the article. Then I do a more thorough prose and source review, and will often copy-edit as I go. If I think more explanation is required, I'll do it here.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Well-researched, well-sourced, well-written, and interesting article. I saw few problems my first glance, so it should be an easy pass.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * I have a few minor issues with the prose; see below for a more thorough review.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * The lead could be a little longer; currently, it doesn't summarize the article well enough.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * At first glance, the references look good. See below for a source review.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * One question: is there any information out there about the influence this incident had, other than the changed law? If so, you should include it; if not, ignore me, please.
 * I've added everything I could find - would be happy to expand if any other information becomes available. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 11:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One question: is there any information out there about the influence this incident had, other than the changed law? If so, you should include it; if not, ignore me, please.
 * I've added everything I could find - would be happy to expand if any other information becomes available. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 11:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * No edits since May; most edits made by one editor.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Great images. I'm always jealous of those editors who work on articles about older subjects like this, since most of the images that can be used are old enough to be in the public domain.
 * One more added. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 11:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Great images. I'm always jealous of those editors who work on articles about older subjects like this, since most of the images that can be used are old enough to be in the public domain.
 * One more added. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 11:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A few minor issues that should be easily addressed. Nice job.

Prose review
Preliminary questions
 * Isn't it customary to, when a ship is named for a person, to refer to her by the last name; i.e., the Southard? The main reason I ask this question is that I think you refer to the ship with the personal pronoun too often, and you need to use her name.  Depending upon your answer, I'm happy to make this copy-edit.
 * Haven't seen this use before, but have taken your advice on this and changed a number of them.


 * Since this is an American ship, wouldn't it be better to use American spelling rather than British? This is a picky point, so if you give me a good reason for it, like that she was used mostly in British waters and most of the rescuers were British, and as long as your choice is consistent (I haven't seen any inconsistencies this early on), I'm fine with your choice, one way or the other.
 * The wrecking for which the ship is best known was a very Liverpool event, most of the sources are British English and the author is a user of British English.

Lead: As I state above, the lead needs to be expanded.
 * Done - please let me know if it's long enough now.
 * Not only does it need to be long enough, it needs to summarize the article, which it currently does not. There's nothing in the lead about the ship's description, or anything about the law change required to recognize the rescuers.  Please add before I can pass this to GA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Description: ''...she resorted to using a revolver to keep them at bay until a passing ship encountered Ellen Southard adrift 80 miles (130 km) from Santa Cruz, California. USRC Wayanda went to her assistance.'' The sources seem to state that the Wayanda was the ship that encountered and assisted Ellen Southard. The current wording makes it seem like one ship encountered her, and another assisted. If it was the same ship, how about: "...she resorted to using a revolver to keep them at bay until a passing ship, the USRC Wayanda, encountered Ellen Southard adrift 80 miles (130 km) from Santa Cruz, California and provided assistance." You'd have to deal with putting the refs in the right places, but that gets into a point about refs I want to make later; see source review below. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've improved the wording, as I can see why this could be confusing as there were 2 other ships involved.

Lifeboat disaster
 * Nine minutes later, the three-year-old tubular lifeboat set out with fourteen volunteers under the command of Captain James Martin. I looked up lifeboat and saw that it doesn't explain what a "tubular lifeboat", so I think that you need to give a few words of explanation.  This is picky, I know, but I think you should change "the" to "a" because it doesn't seem that you're talking about a specific lifeboat.
 * Added a note explaining what a tubular lifeboat is - please let me know if you think this is not adequate. The "the" is correct, because I am talking about a specific lifeboat (i.e. the one from Liverpool).
 * Nicely done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The steam tug Rattler initially took the heavy Liverpool boat in tow. What do you mean by "the heavy Liverpool boat"? Please clarify.
 * The liveboats had to be heavy to be able to go out in rough seas - which in turn made them harder work to row.  Reworded.


 * ...which duly turned around to come to the rescue. "Duly" is a peacock term; I'd remove it if I were you.
 * Removed


 * The men who were on the capsized boat directed the New Brighton lifeboat to firstly assist three others... Is "firstly" a British-cism?
 * Maybe - I changed it.

Lifesaving medals
 * Why were American medals given in Liverpool?
 * Presumably because the recipients were not American, and not in a position to travel.  I speculate that many would have been relatively poor dock workers.


 * I'm not sure about including the entire citation. For GA, it's acceptable, but if this article was long enough for FAC, they'd probably ping you on it.  I'd get a second opinion about it if I were you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review

 * Nice job with your references; everything is well-researched, with interesting sources. I spot-checked a couple, and they look good.  Kudos for the primary sources you use.  I know that we're supposed to use reliable secondary sources in WP, but I also know that it's not a hard-and-fast rule.  There are times, depending upon the article, that you have to "resort" to primary sources, and I believe this is one of those cases.  Very cool and impressive.
 * I think that you, at times, WP:OVERCITE. I always say that if you can say the same thing with one source, choose the best one and go with it.  For example, you use three refs to support the year the ship was built.  I think that you only really need two, especially since one (ref 6) requires a subscription.  Sometimes, it's necessary to include over two refs, but I'm not sure that's the case most of the time here.  I recommend that you go through this article and decide which refs are necessary and which are not.
 * I felt I was being challenged about this date by another editor - the dates also differed between sources, so I went with the ones cited to show a majority consensus.

Good work. This should pass with these few, minor changes. I'll give you a week (7/30) to address my feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

All I need you to do is to work on the lead, and you should be good to go! Again, nice job. This story would make a great movie, or at the very least, an interesting documentary. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my suggestions. Will go pass now. Congrats! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your time & effort, and constructive feedback. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 09:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)