Talk:Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've had a quick read through. So, these are my initial comments:-
 * On the "plus side": The article is well illustrated, well referenced and cited (footnotes and notes); and it is generally of GA-standard.
 * On the "negative side": I normally leave the WP:lead (or lede) until last, and will do so in my detailed review which follows; however, I think the lede is a bit weak (I'm tempted to resequence it). There is also some WP:Overlinking, both "normal" Overlinking and Overlinking where the same wikilink is pipelined to two (or more) different short phrases.
 * In due course the article could be a WP:FAC, however, these two "weaknesses" will have to be addressed far more critically than for GA.

I will now start detail my detailed comments, but leaving the WP:lead until the end. This step is likely to take several days to produce comments: but fixing them should not be too onerous. Pyrotec (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Background -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC) - There is some good and well referenced material in here. However, the sentences/paragraphs don't read all that well:
 * The first paragraph is really an introduction and summary of what follows in the next four paragraphs. My own thought (not a GA requirement) is that the sentence:On 2 September 1939 the "realisation dawned on Ireland that the country was surrounded by water and that the sea was of vital importance to her".[20][21] does not belong here. It probably fits better into the last paragraph.
 * Again this is a personal comment (not a GA requirement), a comparison in the first paragraph against Norway on tonnage as being a similar sized country seemed odd. I had thought of Ireland as being a vaguely "round" or "square" country with good internal transport; with Norway, in contrast, being a narrow "ribbon" country with a very long western coast line and poor internal transport links. I know of the Hurtigruten (and have travelled on it) and that Norway used coastal shipping, but I was not aware that Ireland was dependant on coastal shipping in the 1920s. That, however, is explained latter in the third paragraph. Perhaps the contrast of tonnage with Norway in the first paragraph and a similarity with Norway for coastal shipping, partially mentioned in the third paragraph, needs to be brought together in a copy edit.
 * Again this is a personal comment (not a GA requirement). This section might read better if the "Then-Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Éamon de Valera..." paragraph came after the "The war of independence (1919–1921), and the civil war...." paragraph.

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC) - Very much improved. One minor point. Reference 15, used twice in the first paragraph and once in the final paragraph is both a citation and an (undeclared) note; the "note"-part refers to "the tribunal". However, "the tribunal" is not explained until the final paragraph - Ports and Harbours Tribunal, I presume. I would suggest that either ref 15 be split into a citation and a note, and/or the "tribunal" is named in full. Pyrotec (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what happened here. The Citation 15 I was referring to is now 14 and there is a new Note 7. Note 7 and reference 14 appear to go together, but both need to be reconsidered in respect of what they are being used for. Pyrotec (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * War declared -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) - In the first paragraph, it states: "Up to then most Irish-registered ships had been flying the red ensign of the United Kingdom's Merchant Navy. All were required by law to fly the Red Ensign (also affectionately.......". My question is "Whose law": I suggest that this needs clarifying? since, the next but one sentence continues: "The Irish government ordered all Irish ships to fly the tricolour....". So, was it "British" (United Kingdom of GB and Ireland) law that was superseded by Irish independence?


 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) - In the "Whaling" sentence, I assume that "quota" refers to fishing quota or perhaps whale quotes - but if so I was not aware that we had them that far back (I had assumed these were post-1960s(?) "Cod War" & European imposed).

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cargo -
 * Exports -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC) - The first paragraph is WW I, the third paragraph is the 1930s; and the middle is about the "War" - WW II I suspect since 1940 & 1941 data is use. I suggest that the paragraphs are reordered in date-sequence with the current third paragraph being moved into second place.


 * U-boat encounters (I changed the title slightly) -
 * Looks OK.


 * Convoys -
 * In the second paragraph term "long watch" is used, as in: "Insurance of Irish ships during the Long Watch was problematic.". There is also book of that title (Forde, 1981). Should long watch be in quotes or italics? I assume it is a term attached to the Atlantic convoys; but its not one that I came come across before (not strictly correct, as this is the second WP:GAN nomination of yours that I've reviewed).

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry of the lack of comments in the last week or so: however, I have no further comments to add on this section. Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Trade routes -
 * British routes, The Iberian trade & Atlantic routes -
 * These looks OK.

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * I'm awarding this article GA-status. In terms of scope, references/citations this article is potentially a WP:FAC. In a fairly short time frame this article could make FA-status; however, before submitting I would suggest that this article needs a period of stability and a WP:PR to ensure that it is on track for FAC (which tends to be a far more communal and "nit picking" affair). Congratulations on producing a comprehensive and encyclopedic article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

first

 * Thanks, I want this one to be correct as I view it as an umbrella article with others on individual ship, shipping companies and events to follow. Therefore looking forward to your comments and advice. - ClemMcGann (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to Initial comments

 * FAC: good suggestion, lets tackle any such issues now
 * Illustrations: I can get others.
 * Lede: I accept there might be a problem, as you suggest, let's leave it for now.
 * Overlinking: now that you mention it, I see what you mean, should be easy to fix.
 * Norway: this comparison was introduced during the peer review. It was to illustrate just how small/inadequate the fleet was. Bernard Share's book "The Emergency" uses Norway as an example.  However, perhaps saying 5% suffices and lets drop Norway.
 * On 2 September 1939 the "realisation dawned... Its a nice sentence, but in the wrong place (a weed is just a flower in the wrong place) - moved -
 * "causes": Then-Taoiseach: moved. that first paragraph in that section was a summary of the other 'causes' - make it so again - drop the anglo-irish war, more infrastructure damage was caused by the civil war (blowing up railway bridges); add neglect.  Now reads: There were several reasons for this decline:[19] consequences of the war of independence, a policy of self-sufficiency, the economic depression, the lack of investment.[20] and government neglect.

OR?
Just in case... Irish ships rescued 534 seamen.[note 4] That figure is not published. I have checked it with some authors. It will be published. Is it ok to leave it in with that note? - ClemMcGann (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Pat Sweeney tells me that he is publishing has published it in the autumn newsletter of the MII - ClemMcGann (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Second

 * Ports and Harbours Tribunal': noted  (i hope)
 * red ensign: it was UK law. there were instances in the 1930's of the UK Customs bringing the captains of Irish ships to court were they were convinced and fined for "flying an improper ensign" (the irish tricolour).
 * whale quotas they went back that far. up to two centuries ago there were whales off the south coast of Ireland, but they were hunted to extinction
 * long watch: and "emergency" - if they are confusing, they could just be deleted.
 * exports: resequenced }

book titles
where an author has two or more books in the reference list, i have added the book title to the reference. Should all these titles be in quotes? - ClemMcGann (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC) - ClemMcGann (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was trying to make it a bit more consistent. One widely used citation system is Havard, so if Smith had written several books, the cite would be Smith (1996), page 3-6; Smith (1997), page 10; etc. The other widely used one is a variant of what you have done, i.e. Surname, title (in italics) and pages). Consistency its far more important at WP:FAC, but we could make start here (See Citing sources for guidance). Pyrotec (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not use years; titles are easier to look up; and what if there were two - or more - published in the same year? - ClemMcGann (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC) . - ClemMcGann (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not forcing Havard, but I can ask for consistency. For multiples: Smith (1970), Smith (1970a), Smith (1970b), etc: Smith was busy in 1969-70! Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that I am going through them, I haven't a 'busy smith', I thought I had, must have dropped off. I'm using year & title. Nearly there.

lede
- ClemMcGann (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * btw - i received an interesting email - ClemMcGann (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * added a summary - ClemMcGann (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Lede looks fine now. I'm awarding GA-status. Were you intending to say more about the email?