Talk:HMS Endymion (1865)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Brad101 (talk • contribs • count ) 10:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I'll start the review since this nomination has been sitting here so long. Brad (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 2a might be effected by 3b below. Cannot comment until work is completed.
 * There are two clarification type tags on the article. Brad (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the one about target/gunnery practice. It would be OR to try and interpret what was meant by the source. I've wikilinked the term used by the source. As for where Villafranca is, I added that tag myself - Villafranca Sicula or Villafranca Tirrena seem the likeliest candidates. This should not be a big enough problem to prevent promotion IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article cannot pass the review with maintenance templates in place. I suggest different wording or elimination of the passage if it cannot be made clear. Brad (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Having checked the it:wp article, it's Villafrance Tirrena. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There is a lot of unnecessary detail surrounding the crew of the ship. The article is reading like a daily itinerary of events. Focus on the ship and summary of events are needed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * For File:HMS Endymion (1865).jpg the life +70 tag does not apply unless the year of death of the author is known and listed. For File:Atlas & Endymion.jpg the life +70 cannot apply if the author is unknown; same for File:Endymion Galley.jpg. Copyright by publication date licenses are probably better but files on commons must clearly be out of copyright for the US.
 * File:HMS Endymion (1865).jpg - The event depicted happened in September 1870. The source states © National Maritime Mueseum.The NMM states a C19th date, which means 1900 at the very latest, therefore the image must be in the PD, even in countries with the 100 year rule. I asked FPAS about this one, and he seems to think the artist died in 1904, again putting the image in the PD. Mjroots (talk)
 * File:Atlas & Endymion.jpg - This image was published by the Illustrated London News on 23 July 1881. Therefore it is in the public domain. Mjroots (talk)
 * File:Endymion Galley.jpg - My best guess is that the original publisher of this image was the Metropolitan Asylums Board, which ceased to exist in 1930, the image being 1908 at the latest. The Portcities website notes this image as "© National Maritime Museum". The image is available on Flickr marked as "no known restrictions". Mjroots (talk)
 * File:HMS Endymion (1865).jpg - The event depicted happened in September 1870. The source states © National Maritime Mueseum.The NMM states a C19th date, which means 1900 at the very latest, therefore the image must be in the PD, even in countries with the 100 year rule. I asked FPAS about this one, and he seems to think the artist died in 1904, again putting the image in the PD. Mjroots (talk)
 * File:Atlas & Endymion.jpg - This image was published by the Illustrated London News on 23 July 1881. Therefore it is in the public domain. Mjroots (talk)
 * File:Endymion Galley.jpg - My best guess is that the original publisher of this image was the Metropolitan Asylums Board, which ceased to exist in 1930, the image being 1908 at the latest. The Portcities website notes this image as "© National Maritime Museum". The image is available on Flickr marked as "no known restrictions". Mjroots (talk)


 * In the Administration and hospital ship section you have two pics bunched up together. They need to spread out within that section if both pics are relevant to that section.
 * ✅ - image moved. Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall: Article on hold for 14 days or until issues are addressed. Brad (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:

Questions
''There is a lot of unnecessary detail surrounding the crew of the ship. The article is reading like a daily itinerary of events. Focus on the ship and summary of events are needed.''
 * I take it this is referring to the "History" section and that the description and construction sections pass muster. The history section is split into three - "Front-line service", "Guard ship" and "Administration and hospital ship". Again, I take it that there is no problem with the latter. Which brings us down to two subsections. Brad, is it the courts-martial or assistance at fires you have issues with, or both? Mjroots (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok; here are a few examples:
 * On 25 February, one of her carpenters was court-martialled on board HMS Hibernia (1804) for drunkenness. He was found guilty and dismissed from the ship, being returned to the United Kingdom on board HMS Megaera (1849). and this matters why?
 * On 27 November, her assistant-paymaster was court-martialled on board HMS Hibernia for being absent without leave. He was found guilty, losing a year's seniority and being dismissed from the ship. and this matters why?
 * In March 1879, a butcher in Hull launched a lawsuit to recover £47 in respect of meat supplied to the officers of the wardroom mess. A mess-man by the name of Jones had collected monies from various crew, but not paid the butcher. The jury found in favour of the plaintiff, even though notices had been placed in the local press stating that Jones was not authorised to pledge the credit of the officers on board Endymion. and this is an event important enough to mention? Why?
 * I could list example after example. Remember that the article is about Endymion and should only concentrate as much as possible about things that had effect on the ship. Mentions of court martials, detail of building fires and activities of other ships should be at a bare minimum. Brad (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. IMHO, this article isn't just about the ship. Her crew had an important part to play too. Military discipline was (and still is) a part of miltary life. As noted above, the Courts-martial work out at a little over 1 per 600 man-years service, so were fairly rare occurrences. The details included under the section covering her use as a guard ship give some insight into the socio-economic history of the mid-C19th. Military personnel frequently assisted at fires in the days before the formation of a dedicated fire service on a county wide level. The butcher suing gives some insight into how ships were supplied in those days (what would nowadays be called "logistics"). It shows that where a ship was stationed at a particular place for a long period of time, supplies were often contracted on a local basis, at mess-level in this case.
 * Whilst at Hull, many crewmembers from Endymion absconded and were arrested by the local police. They were often fined and returned to the ship. You will notice that I've kept these details from the article as I feel that they really are too trivial. Courts-martial on the other hand, were not trivial affairs, and were rarer than many people would imagine was the case.
 * So, looking to work through this, I could re-add a "courts-martial" section that would give a brief overvwiew of how many CMs there were, when and where they were held - rather than the detailed section that was previously part of the article. I think the sole CM held on board Endymion should stay. Mjroots (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is too detailed and appears like an itinerary; practically every other sentence begins with On xxxx etc. Adding a court-martial section would only make things worse. Again, this is an article about a ship and should not be a socio-economic history or an example of how military discipline was carried out. Brad (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Any further comments here? I dislike failing articles so maybe a second opinion is in order. Brad (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would concur with Brad's concerns. There are many trivial details on extremely tangential aspects to the ship herself. While I understand the temptation to include many of the different details that can be collected from contemporary reports, I feel a greater level of discrimination needs to be shown (WP:SUMMARY). It should not be a social history of the Royal Navy of the period, nor should it seek to cover all aspects of the crew's life, let alone the ship's. If you are using these examples to demonstrate how logistics of the period worked, then we are deviating from the true subject of the topic. Brad's examples seem just the sort of detail I would say to cut from the article. Benea (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm failing the article. No response from nominator and no further work on the article done the past five days. Brad (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, I'm not editing much atm due to health issues. Will keep the above comments in mind and come back to the artice once I've recovered. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)