Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Midshipman/archive2


 * 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 Maralia 20:09, 13 November 2009.

Midshipman

 * Nominator(s): Kirk (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the comments from the first FAC review, the article was copy-edited and re-peer reviewed, the Adelborst references were replaced using a Dutch government publication, the content was re-sectioned, the non-compliant US naval ranks navigation was removed and replaced with a more compliant officer candidate navigation, along with various other minor changes. I welcome your comments and suggestions. Kirk (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - Kirk (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing all that. It's looking pretty good. Some suggestions for further improvement:
 * Some of the alt text repeats what's in the caption, which it shouldn't do (see WP:ALT). Instead, the alt text should describe visual details that the caption does not describe. Phrases that have the problem include "a midshipman in the Royal Navy", "the insignia of a midshipman in the Royal Navy", "in 1810". Generally speaking, alt text shouldn't have proper names (see WP:ALT) and shouldn't contain info unless it is obvious to a non-expert who is looking only at the image (see WP:ALT).
 * The alt text for File:USN Midshipman Insignia.png is too long; see WP:ALT. It's very good, though, so I suggest moving it to the file page (in its Description section), and replacing it with a summary that's at most 100 words, preferably 50.
 * The phrase "A close up picture" can be removed; see WP:ALT.
 * One alt text says "alt=", which is a typo.
 * Eubulides (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - I fixed all of the issues I found and move the text to the image description. Let me know if you have other comments.  Kirk (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. All but one of the previous items are now struck; there's still an "in 1810" that needs to be removed. One more thing, which resulted from the above changes: the lead image's alt text "A full size portrait of a boy wearing the uniform of a midshipman." conveys almost zero useful info about what a midshipman looked like, so a visually impaired reader will be nearly clueless about looks. Could you please rephrase this to discuss the blue coat with tails, the marvellous brown bicorne, the sash, the longish golden hair, the white waistcoat and breeches and hose, the sword, and the portfolio under his arm? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - thanks for your suggestions! Kirk (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Comment Support - Very good informative article. Just a few problems spotted with some of the text:
 * A midshipman is an officer cadet, or alternatively a commissioned officer of the lowest rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. .... Do we need the word "alternatively", it adds nothing?
 * a British Royal Navy midshipman served seven years on the lower deck and was roughly equivalent to a present day petty officer in rank and position. After serving at least four years as a midshipman or master's mate, they were eligible to take the examination for lieutenant.
 * A few problems with this passage. 1) "Rank and position." Aren't these the same? The words "and position" seem to add nothing but a slight confusion in the reader's mind. Or do you mean "Rank and duties" or "rank and responsibilities", which would be clearer? 2) The sentence makes it seem that midshipman and master's mate are the same thing, which the article shows they are not. This needs some clarification. 3) Tenses. We switch from singular tense to plural without reason, which is jarring. Perhaps "he was" should replace "they were". :::* 1) They aren't the same;I like rank and responsibilities. 2) That's the text of the regulation... 3) I'll fix that.


 * During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the U.S. replaced apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college,
 * Grammatically "led to the replacement of" would be better than "replaced". And U.S. Navy would be better than just U.S.


 * The local term for "Navy Guard" is regarded as equivalent to "midshipman" in many languages
 * " Navy Guard" means nothing in English, and is likely to puzzle readers, since it does not bring to mind anything resembling a midshipman. From the article text, it appears that the origin of the foreign rank translated into English here as "Navy Guard" was a type of cadet. It might be clearer, therefore to replace the term with "Navy Cadet" or "Naval Cadet".
 * I'm still puzzled! It literally means Navy Guard; in the many nations there are Guards units in the Army with a strong royal connection that Midshipman lacks; the translation into English by the dictionaries I consulted is Midshipman, not Naval Cadet.  Off the top of my head: In many romanc languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including...  Thoughts?
 * The Canadian Navy uses the term "Naval Cadet" in English, so that is the closest English term in actual use. Your suggestion is an improvement however. The problem could also be solved by a rearrangement of the sentence, for example: "Terms regarded as the equivalent of "midshipman" in other languages include the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. These can be roughly translated as Navy Guard or Naval Cadet."  Xan  dar   02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Navy Guard came from the name of the companies they served in, which is discussed in the next two sentences - again, if you look in the dictionary for those words, all of them are translated as midshipman. The translation of Naval Cadet into French is Aspirant de marine.Kirk (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * However as the sentence currently appears in the article it is still wrong, since Naval Guard is not an English term. If you don't like my version, then your alternative In many romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including... would be a lot better.   Xan  dar   01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Beginning in the 17th century, volunteer boys were sent to serve on ships in place of a midshipman, with a "letter of service," from the crown, which instructed the admirals and captains that the bearer was to be shown "such kindness as you shall judge fit for a gentleman, both in accommodating him in your ship and in furthering his improvement.
 * Very long sentence. Could it not be split after "from the crown"? Then continue "This instructed..." Also "Beginning in the 17th century" feels clumsy. It would be better to start with something like "From the 17th century onward..."

 Xan  dar  23:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two different explanations for the origin of the term midshipman. The lead states that it comes from "amidships". This does not appear in the main text, however, instead there is an explanation about working between the main and mizzen masts. Perhaps the amidships explanation needs adding to the main text to avoid confusion.
 * Everything else not specifically addressed I changed; Thanks for your comments!! Kirk (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I did find one other puzzling passage:
 * At the height of the Age of Sail, during the Napoleonic era (1793–1815), most midshipmen started their sailing career around the age of 12. Royal Navy regulations required that no one "be rated as master's mate or midshipman who shall not have been three years at sea". Most boys served this period at sea; another three years might be served in any lower rating,either as a seaman or as a servant of one of the ship's officers.
 * The last sentence. Does it mean that some candidates served six years at sea before becoming a midshipman? That's how it seems to read.  Xan  dar   02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point - here's a longer version: You can join the navy at 11 if your father is a naval officer, or 13 otherwise, and no one was verifying birth records if you 'looked' 11/13. Prior to promotion to midshipman, the regulations said you had to serve 3 years at sea in any lower rating.  Most boys with connections served as volunteers or servants(pre-1794) or volunteer 1st class (post 1794), but 30 or so boys a year attended the royal naval college which counted as sea time, and another minority served as seamen boys or able seamen - it didn't really matter what rating you had, just as long as you had the sea time(Unless you cheated and used your connections to skip this whole process).  I'll just delete ';another three years might be'.  Thoughts?Kirk (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes it clearer, which is what we want.  Xan  dar   01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3
 * File:Thomas Rowlandson-midship.jpg - Please list the complete publication information for the source for this image on the image description page.
 * Done


 * File:NormalEntryCommissionRoute.png - Please add a source for the information in this diagram to the image description page.
 * Done


 * File:Midshipman Noa.jpg - Please provide a date and an author for this image. Also, please provide a link to the source and more detailed information on how to find this image at the source so that we can verify the license.
 * Done - I'll notify the author, but for the time being I'm going to remove the image.
 * I've stricken this since the image has been removed. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * File:UK-Navy-OFD.svg - Please add a summary template to the image description page and fill it out. Please be sure to include a source for the design.
 * Done


 * File:USN Midshipman Insignia.png - Please add a source for the information in this diagram to the image description page.
 * Done


 * File:Royal New Zealand Navy Midshipman Badge.PNG - Please add a source for the information in this diagram to the image description page.
 * Done


 * File:Navy sleeve NCdt.png - Please add a fair use rationale for the "Midshipman" article and be sure to include a source for the information in the diagram.
 * Done - sorry I thought I did that when I added the rationale. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still has no source. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - really added it this time. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Midshipman-SA.png - Please add a source for the information in this diagram to the image description page.
 * Done
 * Still has no source. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - really added it this time. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * File:UK-Navy-OFD.svg - Please add a summary template to the image description page and fill it out. Please be sure to include a source for the design.
 * Done


 * File:Midshipman Pak Navy.png - Please add a fair use rationale for the "Midshipman" article.
 * Done
 * Still has no fair use rationale for the "Midshipman" article. Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - I added a rationale. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It has no purpose of use. Awadewit (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - must have missed it when I changed the article. Thanks!Kirk (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "To be used in [article X]" is not an adequate purpose of use. The purpose of use must explain why the image itself it required, why, for example, it cannot be described in words. Awadewit (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to - "Display the insignia for the rank of Midshipman in the Pakistan Navy."? Kirk (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Guarda marinha.gif - Can you link to the source more specifically?
 * Done - I also fixed the image to remove the insignia of the medical corps.
 * The link does not work. Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done Link fixed. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Grade-aspirant.svg - Please add a summary template to the image description page and fill it out. Please be sure to include a source for the design.
 * Done


 * File:7 - skad.GIF - Please translate the description into English at the image description page and add a source for the diagram.
 * Done


 * File:9 - fhr zs.GIF - Please translate the description into English at the image description page and add a source for the diagram.
 * Done


 * File:11 - ofhr zs.GIF - Please translate the description into English at the image description page and add a source for the diagram.
 * Done


 * File:IT-Navy-OFD-s.png - Please fix the source link so that the license can be verified.
 * Done


 * File:Nl-marine-vloot-matroos.svg - Please translate the description into English at the image description page and add a source for the diagram.
 * Done


 * File:Nl-marine-vloot-korporaal.svg - Please translate the description into English at the image description page and add a source for the diagram.
 * Done


 * File:Nl-marine-vloot-sergeant.svg - Please translate the description into English at the image description page and add a source for the diagram.
 * Done


 * File:PegawaiKadetKanan.PNG - Please add a source for the information in this diagram to the image description page.
 * Done


 * File:POR-Navy-Aspirante-EN.png - Please add a source for the information in this diagram to the image description page.
 * Done


 * File:POR-Navy-Aspirante-outros.png - Please add a source for the information in this diagram to the image description page.
 * Done


 * File:Rus Navy WRNT shoulder.png - Please add a summary template to the image description page and fill it out. Please be sure to include a source for the design.
 * Done - this rank is in the process of being abolished, and despite the name its actually a type of warrant officer so I removed it from the article.
 * Do you mean that the image has been removed from the article? Awadewit (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, removed from article. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * File:SP Alumnos.gif - Please add a summary template to the image description page and fill it out. Please be sure to include a source for the design.
 * Done

I look forward to striking my oppose when these issues are fixed. Awadewit (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First round of changes. Kirk (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Second round of changes.Kirk (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Third round of changes. Kirk (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fourth round of changes. Kirk (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fifth round of changes - all images fixed. Kirk (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sixth round of changes - hopefully fixed everything! Kirk (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seventh time's the charm?Kirk (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All images have been cleared - striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose by Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, crit. 1c and 3. Awadewit has pretty much covered my issues with unverified image, but I'm also concerned about referencing. A small sampling of unreferenced content that I don't think meet the "common knowledge" threshold include:
 * "There is no evidence to support either story, but the nickname persists today."
 * Done - missed a penn reference. Kirk (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The last two paragraphs of "Royal Navy", " During the second seven weeks, officer cadets learn essential sea officer skills, including navigation and the marine environment, strategic studies, and basic sea survival [...] which completes part of a Foundation Degree(FdSc) in Naval Studies (equating to two thirds of an Honours degree), on completion of initial Professional Training."
 * Some of this content might be referenced, but it's unclear as to what it is cited to.
 * Done - I fixed the wording and references in this section, thanks for bringing that to my attention.Kirk (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article essentially just focuses on the UK/former commonwealth territories and the United States. Is this term used by non-European countries and the aforementioned exceptions? If so, it needs to be covered, if not, it needs to be said.
 * Its an English word, is only used by Navies that were based on the British Royal Navy and speak English. I covered the differences in the comparative rank section.  Would you suggest adding a statement to the lead? Kirk (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are several one to two-line nonparagraphs that need to be either expanded, merged, or cut; a paragraph needs at least three sentences to stand on its own.-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, removed Canada, fixed SA and New Zealand (the culprits I could find) Kirk (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Somebody chopped a sig here; could someone please review the page history and restore the chopped sig, so I can figure out whose oppose this is? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed Kirk (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Seems pretty much there. Do we have no more pictures?  Should there be a section on midshipmen in fiction etc? Mr Midshipman Easy and Mr. Midshipman Hornblower are worth see alsos at least, but a short section could be got up, I'm sure. Was the boy who stood on the burning deck one, albeit French? Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hope its almost there too. I've found many more pictures that show midshipman modeling their uniforms over time but I'm not sure it really helps the article (e.g. By 1830, Midshipmen wore top-hats, by the late 1850's they wore floppy hats ...); I would like pictures of midshipmen actually doing something.
 * Along with those examples you cited (not clear if Casabianca was a Garde or not), there's the midshipmen in every nautical Bildungsroman along with the countless ones in Patrick O'Brian's works; certainly enough for a Midshipmen in fiction article. The movie Master and Commander: Far Side of the World has a good composite midshipman character William Blakeney; his oversized role aboard ship actually interested me in this subject in the first place. Kirk (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In regards to an in fiction/pop culture section, there is a relevant Military history guideline that should be followed if such a section is indeed implemented: WP:MILPOP which is in the MILMOS which was integrated into the MOS a while back. -MBK004 23:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my opinion is its a good candidate for another article, not a section in this article. Kirk (talk)


 *  Leaning Strong Oppose per Copyvio
 * We say "At any given time there may be around 60 midshipmen in the Royal New Zealand Navy ." Following the link to the source, they say "At any given time there may be around 60 midshipmen in the Royal New Zealand Navy." I hope this parroting is not gonna be a trend.
 * Oh dear. We say "The concept of the Gardes was borrowed from the army, and the curriculum was intended to provide the basic education for an officer rather than practical seamanship." Harding 199, p. 145 says "The concept of the Gardes was borrowed from the army, and the teaching was to provide the basic education for an officer rather than practical seamanship." Note the difference is a single word. And the latter is copyrighted as well. This is a little uncomfortable.
 * Done - I fixed both those passages by paraphrasing them differently and added some more references for NZ; thanks for bringing those to my attention. Kirk (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I scanned it for copyvio (after finding the first instance) and found another instance in about 3 minutes. You're the nominator, and you didn't check for this? How many more instances are there? You should read WP:COPYVIO very, very slowly and carefully. I actually only said "Leaning Oppose" in order to give you a fig leaf to let you withdraw the nom. Changing to Strong Oppose per WP:COPYVIO. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How are you 'scanning for copyvio'? I wasn't aware of any tools for this purpose; certainly the article has gone through a GA review, two A reviews, two FA reviews and at least two peer reviews, but a tool would be helpful.  I've already addressed quite a few potential violations in this article; I'm not sure why the 1c problems in the prose you've indicated would require withdrawing the nomination.  I think I found the instance you found from the OED, I'll review the article for problems today & if you have other specific problems, I'd be happy to address them.  Thanks! Kirk (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The tools are my eyes, my brain and my willingness to do something called "work" &mdash;that is, to actually go and search for copyvio. It's forgivable (sorta) if the GA reviewers don't catch such copyvio, but the A-class reviewers should be ashamed. Moreover, yes, you should withdraw the nom. You are putting your name on an article which has already been proven to have copyvio problems. You should act as a responsible Wikipedian and manually verify every cite. Moreover, if you haven't read WP:COPYVIO yet, now would be a good time.Ling.Nut (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll estimate I manually reviewed 80% of the citations yesterday & I found no other issues, but my eyes and brain have their limits. I have read WP:COPYVIO but I feel like we're not on the same page here; I'm going to ping SandyGeorgia to chime in.  Cheers. Kirk (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Rather as in Britain". Is that a British expression? Strange to my ears.
 * "After passing out they". Eh, "passing out" is unintentionally humorous in AmerEng. Can rephrase? After graduating, perhaps?
 * Done - I rewrote the first one, but alas passing out has a different meaning than graduating so I've been intentionally leaving those ones in. Cheers. Kirk (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What does note 30, "37 Stat. 73" mean?
 * Its a citation for United States Statutes at Large; I'll re-verify that's the correct way. Kirk (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hamersly 1881 in notes but not refs... no wait, here it is, below Morris & kearns, but looks strangely cited and located...
 * Done - I redid those; the peer review fixed the reference item but not all the footnotes.
 * Enough for now. I have papers to grade. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions. Kirk (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn - I don't currently have access to a couple of the print sources for a 100% review, so SandyGeorgia, Maralia & I agreed the best course of action was withdrawing the nomination until that's completed. Thanks everyone for their help on this review. Kirk (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.