Talk:Kõpu Lighthouse/GA1

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

Well-written requirement
The article is generally strong, though there are areas to work on before it is GA standard. I've made several edits, mainly prose copyediting. Please check I haven't introduced any errors.

My initial comments are below. After you've looked through these I'll look over the article again and we can continue the review. Thank you. –Whitehorse1 17:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "The lamp used rapeseed oil at the rate of half liters in an hour" Do you mean half a liter per hour, or is there a missing number before 'half'?
 * "Half a liter per hour" is correct. -- Sander Säde 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "In year 1659 the lighthouse was given to a private property and built higher" What does given to a private property mean?
 * It was given to local landlords to manage. I think there was a source specifying the details, I'll try to find it and clear it up a bit. -- Sander Säde 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead will need work. It needs to summarize all the main points of an article, without introducing new material.
 * Now fine. I think the Dagerort name appears only there, but there is little or no benefit in adding it elsewhere just because of that. –Whitehorse1 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You use a lot of passive voice in the article. You may be able to improve the clarity of your writing by rephrasing it to use active voice. Feel free to ask if you'd like me to explain further.
 * The part about it being visible on a clear day for up to 20 km – though without fire or light until autumn 1531 when a fire was lit during the night, seems redundant given it was only finished in 1531. It's plausible there was just a delay before use as a lighthouse until a commemorative launch ceremony could take place.
 * Good point, I will change this part. -- Sander Säde 15:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. –Whitehorse1 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * States it was "initially finished 1531, but negotiations to make the sea-mark higher started almost immediately." The next mention of it becoming higher is 1660, which is 129 years later. Referring to negotiations commencing almost straightaway, rather than something like a few people complaining about its height, doesn't seem to fit that, given nothing happened for one and a quarter centuries.
 * Hmm, true. I think this might be a translation issue from Estonians, perhaps demands to build the lighthouse higher was the original meaning. I will remove the sentence for now. -- Sander Säde 15:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed. –Whitehorse1 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The infobox has a first lit date of 1649, but the article body states fires were first lit in 1531. The 118 year gap would mean it stood as an unlighted beacon, a visual landmark, for a long time. Although the grate came later, as engineering methods developed, the first lit date, denoting when it began use as a lighthouse, should probably be 1531.
 * I'll change that. -- Sander Säde 15:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. –Whitehorse1 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could move the last sentence about the radar lighthouse to the next section, as currently the dates jump around a bit (2001, to 1997, then back to 1999). Optional, please feel free to disagree.
 * Good suggestion, I will do so. -- Sander Säde 15:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now changed. The radar lighthouse sentence is now in the next section. The 2001 renovation detail is still in the previous section, but is together with the other renovation information. Take a look and see if you think that works well. –Whitehorse1 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks very good to me. -- Sander Säde 14:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * States the 1982-installed EMV-930M light system is still in use. As the lighthouse is no longer a primary aid to navigation, it may not be accurate to state its light is still in use.
 * It is still used by small (fishing) boats and yachts, which often do not have the GPS/radar.. or at least didn't used to, I think that the majority of boats have GPS these days. -- Sander Säde 15:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. I added the word 'primary' to the sentence in the Current status section about its role changing in 1997. Do you think this resolves potential confusion for readers? Hmm. An alternative might be adding something like... "Recreational craft and small fishing vessels continue to rely on Kõpu for navigating, as a backup to electronic navigation systems. The Estonian Maritime Administration still class it as an active aid to navigation." Thoughts? –Whitehorse1 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think both suggestion and sentence are very good, I will add that to the article. -- Sander Säde 14:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I think you slotted it in nicely. –Whitehorse1 18:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * States the building of a landmark was requested by the Tallinn city council in 1480, a request ignored until around 1490, and that Tallinn city council was granted permission in 1500 to erect a lighthouse. That's a ten year gap between the last two dates. Should the second date read 1500? It does say "ignored until 'around'" 1490, but only up to 2 or 3 years seem to be covered by 'around', I would've thought?
 * There were probably just early discussions in 1480, but plans never formulated, as in 1481 Muscovites invaded Estonia - I think the gap is reasonable considering the invasion. Afterward, in 1490, the Hansa asked for the lighthouse and was granted permission and funds, but not the land from the bishopric until few years later. However, there are no sources to back this up, this is just my musing on the topic. -- Sander Säde 15:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The extra information about the events in 1481 stalling discussions seems plausible. I wouldn't object to an explanatory footnote mentioning that (that avoids OR?); perhaps that's something you can decide on after completion of the review. –Whitehorse1 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anything about the delay in any sources, so I would rather avoid adding it to the article even as footnote right now. It may be as simple as that there was more demand for the lighthouse after 1490, as peace with Muscovtes brought new trading chances, especially as fur trade with Novgorod opened again. We can always add material later if something can be found. I think I will write to a naval historian mentioned in one of the sources and ask clarification, even if we cannot use his words in the article (personal communication in not a reliable source). -- Sander Säde 14:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and defer to your judgement, Sander. If the historian replies, their input will certainly be interesting. –Whitehorse1 18:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "The construction was slowed by plague, famine and wars." Although the source reflects this, is this accurate? It seems a very eventful 26 years.
 * I've wondered the same. I have a feeling that the work started in 1504/1505, then stalled (both uprisings and plague were common in that era), and the tower was actually finished around 1520 - but then the Protestant Reformation began, which did not go smoothly. However, the sources are fairly uniform in this, except this booklet, which says 1527–1531. -- Sander Säde 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering about that booklet; it's a large difference. The impression from the article is all the other sources more or less agree on the years involved. Is the booklet, used only there, sufficiently reliable and trustworthy to merit including? –Whitehorse1 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Answering my own question here, the source seems reliable in Wikipedia terms. I added publisher data. –Whitehorse1 20:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since clarified after new source became available. –Whitehorse1 20:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The 1845 renovations saw the tower reach its final, i.e. current, height. Is this final building height, of 1845–present, 36 metres (120 ft) – comprising solely stone for 24 metres (79 ft) from ground level?
 * Yes, I think so. I'll add the mention of the height to the text. -- Sander Säde 15:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's more me just checking my understanding. The various height extensions, and increasingly powerful lights (visible to increasing distance) present a fair amount of factual detail. –Whitehorse1 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I agree a mention of the height at that part would likely be helpful to readers. Quick fix – I'll add it shortly. It'll save the reader having to refer back to the previous section for the present height, particularly as the construction history section refers to multiple heights. –Whitehorse1 18:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unstruck bulletpoints

 * Following on from that, the article has some small discrepancies between figures, which could be confusing. Different measurement methods or estimations could be a cause. –Whitehorse1 18:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'Design and location' section states "height of the building itself is 36 metres (120 ft), and the light is 103 metres (340 ft) above sea level", while the infobox has "'Focal Height': 102 m (330 ft)", a metre less. The Estonian Maritime Administration DB specifies "'Light altitude': 102 m", which might account for the discrepancy (102 only appears in the article once, though actually so does 103). Please check if they're supposed to be different figures.
 * The article states that around 1659 "its height was extended", without specifying to what. It does state the extension meant the light was now visible from 3 miles further away than it was originally.
 * The Design and location section has "The lighthouse is built at the top of the highest hillock of Hiiumaa island, Tornimägi (English: Tower Hill, 67 metres (220 ft))." The building is 120ft; the light is 340ft above sea level. (220+120=360?). Please check the figures concerned are correct. Incidentally, the cited source for that sentence gives 68m as the height of Tornimägi.
 * The discussion of major repairs, cited to an Estonian language source reads "... 1957, 1970, 1979–1981 and 1982" rather than just noting 1979–1982. Does a clear distinction exist between the '79–'81 and '82 renovations?
 * Presumably, any of those more recent repairs are separate to those made to crumbling walls during the (late/end of?) 1980s.
 * The external link image label is "...during 1988–1990 repairs"; the 'Twentieth century' subsection specifies the late 1980s works as starting later, 1989–1990.

It seems that the actual focal height is 102.6 m, several sources agree on this. The height of the hillock is given as both 67 m and 68 m. I changed the height of the Tornimägi to 68m and lighthouse to 102.6m, as I am unsure if there is a point to mention the difference in hillock height. Although maybe a note? I will add that.

There were continuous small repairs 1979–1981 and a bigger overhaul in 1982, I'll clarify this in the text. I think I actually remember the 1982 repairs, as I visited Hiiumaa with my parents around then.
 * -- Sander Säde 10:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's good to be consistent. Any option from qualifying a figure as approximate, choosing one as authoritative, or adding a note works. –Whitehorse1 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I did wonder about the 1939 repairs 'for its anniversary', as it's not a round figure from the build year. From the 1859 modernization it's 80 years, which is presumably the anniversary meant. –Whitehorse1 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Source says that in 1659 the height was 35.6 m, added that. -- Sander Säde 10:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's better. The next paragraph giving its final height is more effective now. –Whitehorse1 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability; sourcing

 * Sources are generally travel sites or travel books. This isn't ideal, though they're generally official EU/national travel sites, so are reliable sources. Are there any books on Baltic lighthouses you can access?
 * As far as I know, there are three books about Estonian lighthouses:
 * Aleksejev, Igor. Eesti tuletornid (Estonian lighthouses). Tallinn: GT Projekt, 2003
 * Peetsalu, Peeter. Eesti majakamaailm (The world of Estonian lighthouses) Tallinn: Olion, 2006
 * Luige, Armas. Eesti tuletornid: fakte ja meenutusi. (Estonian lighthouses: facts and recollections) Tallinn: Eesti Raamat, 1982
 * First book has most material, but it is extensively quoted/cited by poolsaar.ee. I can try to find a copy of it (edit: just found where I can buy it, one of the resale chains still has copies, ). Second book is also out of print, but as I recall, it was mostly a photo book. I have no idea about the third book, but it is somewhat outdated anyway. -- Sander Säde 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will get the book on Monday - they had to order it for me - and hope to have time to work on the article after that. -- Sander Säde 07:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost two months of delay, sorry. However, the website is a verbatim copy of the book, so no major changes were needed. -- Sander Säde 08:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Think nothing of it. Thank you for your outstanding effort and commitment to article building. –Whitehorse1


 * "Kõpu lighthouse. Kõrgessaare parish. korgessaare.ee" Please could you explain what makes this a reliable source?
 * It is an official release by a parish (unit of local civil government). The booklet is flimsy as a source, but I avoided its use as much as possible, only using it for two noncontroversial facts. -- Sander Säde 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Broadness; focus
Am happy with this.

Neutrality; stability
No problems here.

Images
These are generally all fine. Nice pictures by the way, Sander!
 * One comment on the the Kõpu lighthouse 2003.jpg image: The description page states permission to use it under GFDL was sent by the authors (the photographers I presume) to user Jaan513. I don't doubt the statement. Brief verification such as a forwarded consent email probably needs to be logged though, as described here.
 * Am willing to leave this in your hands if you mention this is something you'll look into to see if anything needs to be done. –Whitehorse1 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved as below. –Whitehorse1 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous and suggestions

 * You mention it's the third oldest operating lighthouse. Do you know the first and second, perhaps to put in a footnote?
 * No, unfortunately not a single source mentions what the other two are. I haven't found anything from Wikipedia as well. -- Sander Säde 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the oldest is the Tower of Hercules near A Coruña and second maybe the Torre della Lanterna of Genoa, but I'm not absolutely sure. The Brandaris is also pretty old, but it collapsed once, so I don't think it counts. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if we're not entirely sure, writing "one of the oldest" may be an adequate solution. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 23:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My own research didn't turn up anything definitive either. I imagine there are different ways of determining the oldest. One author might consider a lighthouse establishment date still counts despite substantial structural changes from its original form or its demolition & rebuilding further back from a clifftop, while another might not. I agree with User:Van der Hoorn on those two. The current approach taken in the article works well in my view. –Whitehorse1 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth creating a redirect from "Dagerort lighthouse", or similar.
 * Yes, I will add that, along with couple of other redirects. -- Sander Säde 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm missing info on the light itself. This website says "two white flashes every 10 s." Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 23:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Infobox has the light characteristic - Fl(2) W 10s, which means the same.
 * Also, thank you for your work on this article and assessing WikiProject Estonia articles.
 * -- Sander Säde 07:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes, missed the infobox, sorry. I added an assessment + importance to all articles. The importance may sometimes be slightly off, but for now I think it will do. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 11:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the review and for good suggestions. I will edit the lede and will try to look at the passive voice (always a problem for me, as in Estonian, the passive voice is common and not frowned upon in such context). -- Sander Säde 08:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wizardman, and thank you for your interest. You're right, this review has involved a longer hold period. I expect to give a final read through (I read through it today, and will double check chronology etc., later) today, and close the review within the next 24hrs. –Whitehorse1 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, what's left to do on the article? Almost no posts or anything in the past month and it remains on hold. Wizardman  16:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've completed that read-through. The article has come on in leaps and bounds since its nomination. There're possibly a few 't's to cross and 'i's to dot (see comments above), before we put this one to bed. Thanks. –Whitehorse1

What's left?
Improvements made possible through the new source resulted in a much stronger article. For the most part, it confirms to all six Good article criteria.

The only items outstanding are the unstruck bulletpoints above: those at the bottom of the "Well-written requirement" section (generally figure inconsistencies), and a single item under the "Images" section. Please can you address or respond (e.g. "yep, that's how it's supposed to be") to those as necessary. As no additional problems were introduced with the recent overhaul, once those remaining items are taken care of I'll be happy to pass the article. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 20:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I wrote to the uploader of the picture and asked him to fill in the image permission details, hopefully he will do it within a few days. Otherwise, I will remove the image from the article and see if I can replace it with one of my own - I have quite a few images of the lighthouse, but none from that perspective. -- Sander Säde 09:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strike that, a new picture of the lighthouse has been recently uploaded to the Commons (on the right). I actually like this picture more and it is newer as well (2009), so I replaced the 2003 picture. However, if the uploader fixes the permission issues, I will try to sneak the old pic somewhere as well. -- Sander Säde 09:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mm, it's closer in. I like it too. –Whitehorse1 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope I managed to cover issues in the bulletpoints above now. The height questions were especially tricky. -- Sander Säde 10:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's a wrap. The article meets all GA criteria. Sander Säde, and others, thank you for the great work you've done on the article. I'm pleased to pass Kõpu lighthouse as a Good Article.

It's customary (well, a habit of mine at least), to give suggestions for post-GA improvement when passing an article. That's not such an easy task when the standard of that article is very high.

Your article is well written and presented. It draws on impeccable sources. Word selection and transitions between sentences and paragraphs are sound, but it's always possible slight adjustments may enhance the flow and impact of your work. An experienced copy editor may be able to further improve and polish your already excellent work. I suppose, you could look into whether sound signals such as a foghorn or bell have been present. A quick search I tried on the lighthouse name followed by the word foghorn listed a Cultural Heritage Forum document among results. That document didn't answer the question, but had other facts that might be useful, such as information on private rental and onsite tourist facilities. Of course, anybody can incorporate new information as it becomes available. A well-earned rest might be in order too. Best, Whitehorse1. 20:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)