Talk:Flag of convenience/GA1

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

Hi. I'll probably end up reviewing this in several chunks as I get the time over the next couple of days. I'll post my thoughts as I get to appropriate points in the review. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your time and effort on this! Haus Talk 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Images: Provisional pass. Several images, illustrating points made in the article and licenses seem fine. I've just got a slight question mark in my mind about neutrality, as two of the images are of maritime disasters. It'll become clearer to me as I get through the article whether this fairly represents the topic or not. 4u1e (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Stability: Provisional pass. I see there's been a little to-ing and fro-ing over words in the last week or so. Provided that's all settled now, there doesn't seem to be a current problem. 4u1e (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and verifiability: TBD but note that I think the online source for the phrase in the lead "for purposes of reducing operating costs or avoiding government regulation" may have changed since you quoted from it. It is not now worded that way on the webpage (although the sense is the same) and the American Heritage Dictionary is not mentioned. The webpage does not support the use made of it in the second para of the lead either. The source is also misdescribed: your source is dictionary.com, not the American Heritage Dictionary, even if that is where dictionary.com says the quote comes from. The link for the ICFTU et al. paper "More Troubled Waters: Fishing, Pollution, and FOCs" is broken.


 * Re: American Heritage Dictionary. I see two options: 1) remove the link and cite the physical book, or 2) link to a page (such as http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flag+of+convenience or http://www.yourdictionary.com/flag-of-convenience) that shows the American Heritage definition.  The first option seems to provide more of a WP:RS, while the second offers convenient verification.  I'm open to suggestions on this.  Haus Talk 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: "More Troubled Waters", found another copy and replaced it in the reference. Haus Talk 22:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: 2nd paragraph problem. I think fixing this is a matter of looking at some older revisions.  I expect it to be resolved in a few hours.  Haus Talk 22:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K., I think I've addressed the "second paragraph" concerns in these edits. The fix relied on citing a second dictionary (that is physically on my desk) which has on-line links similar to the American Heritage dictionary above.  When we come to a decision on dictionaries and linking, I'll do the same thing with the Merriam Webster dictionary citation.  Haus Talk 02:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)  I noticed after the fact, that this edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate is also on-line at google books and added the appropriate link.  Haus Talk 08:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, as far as I can tell there is no way to link directly to the information in references 67 & 68. I attempted to address this problem in this edit.  Haus Talk 08:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi - thanks for the updates. This is why I'm providing feedback as I go along, so you get more time to fix any problems. The relevant guidance for what to give as your citation is here. Basically the ref must say where you found it. If you've checked the dictionary in question, then that's your ref. Ref 3 looks OK on that basis. If you've only checked an online dictionary that quotes another dictionary, it's the website that's your ref, not the book it says it's quoting. Thus (unless you've actually looked at the American Heritage Dictionary, in which case we need a page number), your ref 2 is incorrect, since the source appears to be yourdictionary.com. I don't think there's any particular problem here - you seem to have access to sources that support the statement the article is making - it's just a question of making sure that we actually refer to the ones you've used. Para 2 refs look OK now. 4u1e (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In the "Wages" section, you have used ref 65 to support the term "unlicensed personnel", where the source actually uses "ratings". The term "unlicensed personnel", while technically accurate in that ratings won't have relevant operating licenses, could be taken to imply something illegal. I suggest you change it to "ratings" as in the source, with a wikilink and an explanatory note if you think it necessary. See below on this whole section though. 4u1e (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For the moment, I wikilinked "unlicensed personnel" to unlicensed mariner. The term "rating" is archaic (this sense is not defined in the m-w 11th collegiate on my desk) in U.S.-English but in wide and current use in British-English.  I think I can probably rewrite my way around this issue.  Haus Talk 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I've worked around this by defining the terms "unlicensed mariner" and "rating" in the text. Haus Talk 05:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It also looks as if you may be using primary sources to support your conclusions - i.e. drawing inferences directly from the numbers - which would be WP:SYNTHESIS. I haven't finished thinking about this point yet, but your thoughts would be welcome. 4u1e (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My thinking is that the wage information is close to synthesis, but isn't really because the "conclusion" is WP:V. The conclusion, more or less, "mariners employed on FOC ships earn less than those registered in traditional registries", is cited at least a couple of times in the text.  The data from the primary sources is provided as examples.  I specifically avoided saying something like "so American chief engineers make 16 times more than Filipino chief engineers do" because of the feeling that it would be WP:OR.  Haus Talk 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Broad coverage: Provisional fail on criterion 3b, staying focussed on topic.

Can you explain why it is necessary to have so much detail on the various maritime conventions? Most of them have their own articles and I would have thought this article could have referred to them in a much briefer fashion. I may be missing something though!


 * I'm open to splitting much of this information off into other articles. I'm going to ponder it a little, and may start splitting this evening.  Haus Talk 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I split off two new articles and cut this section from 1012 words down to 588 words. My feeling is that as these treaties establish a "minimum level of maritime regulation, from the viewpoint of shipowners" some coverage is needed, but of course, I'm open to more feedback on this item.  I think it was certainly a net positive to cut down on the level of detail in this section.  Cheers.  Haus Talk 11:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the prompt response - I think you could usefully be even more radical in your surgery, but I also think you have done enough to address the point. 4u1e (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I know it's a pain having someone else pick apart your article, but I have real problems with the "Wages" section. The first paragraph doesn't seem to be relevant to FOCs at all. The second para states that wages and FOCs are connected, but I can't see how the remaining content of the para is connected to this statement. Are the registries of the Phillipines and China considered as FOCs? They do not appear in any of the lists of FOC registries in the article, so their wages relative to US ones don't seem relevant. 4u1e (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I ask you to look at this again, considering the sentence "The Phillipines and China are mentioned as particularly important suppliers of maritime labour", and see if it makes more sense? I'll look into rewriting this for clarity tonight.  Haus Talk 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Stricken since I rewrote the section.  Haus Talk 08:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've rewritten the Wages section, cutting a lot, adding a lot, and adding a new reference. I think it has worked around 1) OR concerns, and 2) the "unlicensed personnel"/"rating" concern.  Here's the diff for your convenience.  Cheers.  Haus Talk 05:28, 16
 * The intent of the section is now far clearer, although perhaps a little lengthy for a fairly straightforward point (ducks as Haus's coffee cup is thrown at screen ;-)). I'm afraid I've still got concerns over OR and use of primary sources. I'm only getting 10 minutes here and there to look at the article, so please bear with me a little longer while I complete the review. 4u1e (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well-written: Pass Good writing and no major MoS breaches that I can see. 4u1e (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

More to follow. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing from review I'm really sorry about this, but work has picked up significantly and I simply do not have time to complete this review to my satisfaction. I remain concerned about possible POV and OR issues in the article, as well as some slips in referencing (ref 12 says more or less the opposite to the article regarding online registration), but no longer have the time to get to the bottom of it and justify either a pass or a fail. I have requested a second opinion at WP:GAN. Again, sorry. 4u1e (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: 4u1e (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion Sandman888
 * Lead
 * Remove all refs and do away with the quote, state it directly. All facts should be duplicated in main, lead is just a summary.
 * ✅ (diff). Haus Talk 13:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OR
 * I concur with your dealings here from what I've read. To clarify, I do not believe the wage statement is OR.
 * Images
 * All good, but please make the chart 2D - that is much easier to see the relative size.
 * ✅ Chart is now 2d. Haus Talk 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * All in all a good article. Ping me when done/responded :)


 * Thanks for the second opinion. I'm going to add two remaining items from 4u1e's review that I intend to finish before pinging you.
 * Re-source claims for on-line registration, 24 hour registrations.
 * ✅ (diff)
 * Fix American Heritage ref issue.
 * ✅ (diff)
 * Cheers. Haus Talk 13:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think all issues have now been addressed. Cheers. Haus Talk 09:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Pass
Per above changes I pass the article. Congrats. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 12:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)