Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Midshipman/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009.

Midshipman

 * Nominator(s): Kirk (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating Midshipman for featured article because the article recently passed the Military History project's A class review, and I think its an important military rank. I welcome your comments and suggestions! Kirk (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: there is a significant number of missing publishers throughout the footnotes; please address these before Ealdgyth has to review them (and when Maralia gets to this, she'll surely note that it's a disappointment that MilHist A-class review passed an article lacking publishers). Also, the templates at the bottom of the page do not conform with WP:LAYOUT; these two items together suggest that a thorough MOS review may be in order (which Maralia is likely to do).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Publishers - added to the web citations that didn't have them, assuming that's what you meant.
 * US and UK Officer rank templates - these were here before I started expanding the article & were created by someone else. I reviewed WP:LAYOUT, and while I can see why they don't conform, I think they convey information well.  I moved them to the bottom above the categories for now.  Thanks for the suggestions! Kirk (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The citations need language icons for non-English articles: I did one as a sample (the guardiamarina citations go nowhere, btw). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the rest of the language icons. The Oxford Language Dictionary links for Guardiamarina must require you to login first, that's why they don't work.  Should I just use a book citation?  Thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.17thwelsh.ukf.net/C_CobbeRN_Pgs/C_Cobbe_RN_P01.htm
 * http://www.connexions-direct.com/jobs4u/index.cfm?pid=62&catalogueContentID=2213&render=detailedArticle
 * http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/men/men_ranks_abbreviations.htm
 * Please spell out abbreviations in the notes and references (such as NYU Press).
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: Reliable sources
 * The Cobbe_RN reference has copious sources, mostly from the Public Records Office of the National Archives (UK), and it specifically references the Lieutenants passing certificates code ADM 107 which, unfortunately, aren't digitized. Update Removed ref- its duplicated by the Lavery Ref anyways. Kirk (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Connexions is a UK governmental information, advice, guidance and support service for young people.
 * Dutch submarines is iffy, since I can't find the Royal Netherlands Navy for the rank insignia of Adelborst online, although you can see the insignia in photographs which matches this site. I'll see what else I can find, along with the abbreviations.Kirk (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for future reference, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I'm not going to revert and then readd the strike out on the cobb ref, though, as I would have done it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose It looks like the MOS issues Sandy pointed out above have largely been taken care of, but I see a fair amount of problems in the prose. These examples are from the lead and the Apprentice officers section; a cursory review of the rest of the article evidences similar prose concerns. This needs a thorough copyedit. It would also benefit from additional attention to the insignia images; the great white gaps in the subsections of Modern usage and in the table on Comparative ranks and insignia could surely be reduced if the images were of smaller and more uniform size. Maralia (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "The word derives from the location of ship, amidships, where they were berthed." - "derives from the location of ship" is ungrammatical; suggest "The word derives from the nautical term amidships, referring to the portion of the ship in which they were berthed."
 * "Today, a midshipman is the term for an officer cadet in the U.S. Navy." - "a midshipman is an officer cadet" or "midshipman is the term for an officer cadet".
 * "The first published use of the term midshipman was in 1662, and from 1677 all candidates for commissioned rank in the Royal Navy required previous service as a midshipman." - these appear unrelated; it's unclear why they have been joined.
 * "At the height of the Age of Sail during the Napoleonic era (1793 - 1815)" - a year range should be indicated with an endash, not a hyphen.
 * "The regulations in the Royal Navy demanded that no-one 'be rated as master's mate or midshipman who shall not have been three years at sea'." - this quote should be in double quote marks, and the ending punctuation should be outside the quotes.
 * "A notable example was Thomas Cochrane, whose uncle had him entered at the age of 5, and his name was carried on various ships until he was 18 and received his commission." - this should be "at the age of 5; his name..."
 * "Another way was through the Royal Naval Academy, (renamed the Royal Naval College in 1806), in Portsmouth." - two problems: beginning a paragraph with a vague reference to something from the prior paragraph ("another way") is poor form, and parentheses should never be surrounded by commas.
 * "Midshipmen in the Age of Sail came from a wide social background." - surely the intent is "varied social backgrounds"?
 * "Here is an example of a question from around 1790:" - breaking the fourth wall by speaking directly to the reader should be avoided.
 * "The actual exam questions varied quite considerably" - "actual" and "quite" are both unnecessary here.
 * "In navigation he had to keep a reckoning of the ship's way by plane sailing and on Mercator projection maps, by observing the sun or stars he should be able to determine course and position and understand the variation of the compass." - this string of requirements is not properly joined into a cohesive sentence.
 * "During a time of war, with a large number of ships and battle took its toll on officers, the wait might be a year or two." - something went wrong in the middle of the sentence there.
 * "Career opportunities in the navy, c. 1810" - this image caption needs to identify which navy's promotion scheme it describes.
 * A lot of the copy edit problems stem from the sources which are in 'Academic Historian British English from the 1930's', and I've stared at this too long to do a good job of translating that into brilliant, readable, English prose. I've had a copy edit request out for a couple of months, any volunteers?  Kirk (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Update I expanded the abbreviations and added Maralia's copy edit suggestions. Thank you for your comments. Kirk (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Insignia are smaller & more uniform size now. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.