This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
The gratuitous tagging of articles by some editors is a growing nuisance on WP pages. The following tag was attached to the article in May 2012
{{Multiple issues|lead missing = May 2012|tone = May 2012|original research=May 2012}}
The MoS states that a lead "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". This lead is clearly present in the form of the article's first paragraph.
A suggestion that there "may" be original research in the article is not backed up by any specific details.
Ditto that the tone or style "may" not be in line with WP policy.
Such vague criticisms of content do not improve the article and if the tagging editor feels strongly enough to tag the article, then that editor should knuckle down and actually make the changes he advocates. I am accordingly removing the tag. Paul venter (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That tag was place by me, and was actually quite specific about the issues. Months later, the article continues to have multiple issues, notably original research and very poor referencing. I've spent a few mins cleaning some of this up, but it's still lacking in many ways. Rather than trying to take people who have raised concerns to task on the talk page, your efforts may be better spent helping to make some more improvements to the article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
