Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Bridgeport (AD-10)/archive1


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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:37, 26 March 2010.

Review commentary

 * Notified: WPSHIPS, MILHIST, WT:WIAFA, User:Bellhalla (notified by e-mail, user appears to be retired)

I am nominating this featured article for review because over 50% of it is copied word-for-word from DANFS. An extensive discussion on the issue of FAs that are copies of other sources reached no consensus about the issue in general, but in the case of this specific article it's pretty clear that this article is not among the best work in the encyclopedia. It needs a good deal of research and rewriting to be a decent article. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Motion to close Nominator cites no FAR grounds for initiating the review other than DANFS issues, which are not covered by the current featured article criteria. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:WIAFA starts "A featured article exemplifies our very best work" (emphasis mine). Ucucha 23:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You obviously missed the line on the page that reads Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. From where I sit, this article meets criteria 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4, with nothing left for want. List some criteria under which you claim the article's featured status must be reconsidered on this page and I'll strike my motion to close, but as it stands now this is nothing more that a bad faith nomination made with no effort to cite actual grounds for delisting. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe the first sentence of WP:Featured article criteria is not part of the featured article criteria? (And note that I haven't actually expressed an opinion on this issue, or on this particular article.) Ucucha 23:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Elementary: Its subject to interpretation, and thus can never be expected to hold any substantial weight in an FAR. Cite grounds that can be addressed to run an FAR, that's the rule, and this FAR doesn't do that. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom, did you even look at the extensive discussion? The grounds are that the article is crappy writing and crappy research, and does not exemplify good work. Saying "but it's not in the criteria :(" is missing the forest for the trees, it's looking at the letter of the law but not the spirit. The article is simply not a good article; if you want to defend an article that is a blatant copy of some other source, then explain why you think that is good writing, rather than wikilawyering. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, since you apparently need things spelled out for you, I will say here that the reasons I am technically challenging the article are 1a and 1c. It is not good writing (copy-pasting is lazy writing, and plus the writing that was copied and pasted is archaic and stilted), and since it is just a copy of one source it is clearly not well-researched. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Although I strongly disagree with Rjanag on whether incorporation of PD/free text is "lazy", the incorporated writing really does suck by any modern standards of phrasing. And indeed there are few to absolutely no additional sources that corroborate what is in the copied text, so then either quote it or look it up somewhere else to be sure it's true. My big problem with the presentation though is that the footnotes don't say "copied exact text", thus they present the appearance that they are a further supporting source, rather than a verbatim copy of a synthesis work. I feel this can be misleading and thus not representative of "best work". The "copied from DANFS" ref should be merged with the "DANFS" note at the very least. Franamax (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The writing isn't anything which a copyedit couldn't fix, but the heavy reliance on DANFS as a source is a very big problem in my view. While DANFS entries are typically comprehensive, they're not neutral (they're written and published by the US Navy) and can omit or gloss over topics which are considered embarrassing to the USN or personnel involved with the ship. Nick-D (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - are we (the Ships project) going to be so protective of the FAs under our scope as to call for a procedural close? Yes, the prose needs work. I disagree with Rjanag that it isn't well-researched, but only because this particular ocean liner/destroyer tender is an obscure ship; if it is judged by the community in a FAR that using DANFS so heavily in this instance is not good research, then this article should lose its star. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment/Endorse views of Nick-D and Ed. DANFS entry-based articles need to be carefully checked to make sure that they don't gloss over important historical events. Endorse Ed's view re this particular article. 203.97.106.191 (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments I have updated various references in the article but I found one dead link. The article should be rewritten to eliminate copied PD text but I don't see that as reason enough to delist. As far as "well researched" is concerned, there are four other printed sources cited in this article. Given Bellhalla's reputation on other articles, I'm confident that the research is comprehensive. Of course we can't know this for sure unless the other printed sources are looked at. A common problem with certain ships is a lack of service histories which apparently was only found through the DANFS article. --Brad (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not call this "updating"; you have just changed the formatting a little. The article itself remains more or less unchanged. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 04:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alt text is needed for photos. --Brad (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ALT for advice on alt text. Eubulides (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alt text done; please check. --Brad (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good; thanks. Eubulides (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The topic of whether it's OK for public-domain material to be used in Featured Articles was discussed at quite some length recently (see Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria ), and there was no consensus to change the criteria to prohibit such material. Public domain material may be rejected for other reasons (low quality, etc.), but there's no requirement to rewrite the article to eliminate all public domain material. Eubulides (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I already explained this in my nom statement and in my reply to TomStar above. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Another commenter (below your comment) wrote "The article should be rewritten to eliminate copied PD text" and I was responding to that; sorry, I should have made that clearer. Editors who are working to bring this article up to FA standards should focus on the FA issues, rather than worrying about which phrases were taken from public domain sources and which phrases weren't. Eubulides (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Image check OK. DrKiernan (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Plagiarism debate aside, it is not appropriate for over half of an entire article (let alone an FA) to be sourced solely to a single source. (Note that I supported the article's FAC back in early 2008, but I guess I didn't really consider it back then.) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily inappropriate to have an article heavily based on one source, if it's a good source and if the points it supports are not in dispute among reliable sources. This same topic came up quite recently at Featured article review/Samuel Adams/archive1, with the main complaint being "over-reliance on one single book", and the consensus so far is that that is a frivolous nomination. Eubulides (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Numerous people have already commented above on why DANFS is not necessarily "a good source". Plus, the issue here is not just single-sourcing, it's also the blatant copy-pasting&mdash;if you want you can say "well there's no consensus that that's bad", but there's also no consensus that it's ok (if anything, the discussion that I linked at the top of this nom ended with no real conclusion), so this article should be judged on its own merits, which are quite poor. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But what if there are no other sources? Looking at Google Books, I can't find anything that goes beyond DANFS. It may be a poor source, but in this case I think it's a little different. For one, this seems to be more detailed than many warships of much greater importance (not sure why; maybe the navy writer had an unhealthy interest/obsession with destroyer tenders?). Second, there seem to be no other sources. If there were, I'm sure Bellhalla would have found them (I mean, just look at the variety of sources in SS Kroonland, for example). — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments update I've added the alt text to the photos and removed one photo that added little value to the article. I've updated all of the "retrieved on" dates as well. There is one online reference used which results now in a deadlink and I've not been able to find suitable material to replace it. All four of the listed printed sources outside of the DANFS material are not available to me within my local library network so I cannot verify them. With all of that in mind no one has yet proven this article is not well researched. Simply claiming it isn't, doesn't make it so. I do personally feel that pasted PD text should not be part of a FA but the cry of "It's not a requirement!" used throughout the FA processes here seems to say that this article in it's current state is acceptable. --Brad (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criterion of concern are quality/depth of research, prose.  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll '')  00:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist No substantive improvements to the article during FAR period, apparently no one has adopted it. Quality of research and writing is poor, and as I stated above I do not believe copy-paste jobs represent the encyclopedia's best content. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs rewriting but overall I do not see any outstanding problems that warrant a delisting. There are many other FA's that are in worse condition. --Brad (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, but have you read WP:OTHERSTUFF? And if there are FAs in worse condition, could you show me a few examples? r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether other FAs are better or worse doesn't matter - what matters is whether this article meets the criteria. Brad, by stating "the article needs rewriting" what are you saying? Does the prose need work? The references? Everyone here should state specifics for why the articles should be kept/delisted - specific references that are not included, specific sections of prose that need work, etc. Please remember that copy-paste of PD sources is not against FA criteria at this point and so is not by itself a valid reason to delist - poor prose and not being a thorough survey of the available literature are valid reasons. Dana boomer (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * About "needs rewriting", I totally agree; this is not AfD, and no FAC should "need rewriting". About whether something's being part of the FA criteria has a bearing the FAR process, I don't agree. Regardless of whether an issue is explicitly listed in the criteria, if a consensus among editors is that that issue makes the article fail to be representative of our best work then the article should be delisted. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comment above at 04:06 on 5 March. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I've seen absolutely no evidence that this article was not properly researched. This is quite an obscure ship and the author managed to make good use of what is available information-wise. Also, copy-paste from PD sources is not an issue per WIAFA so I see no reason to delist. Acer (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, the first sentence of WIAFA clearly says featured articles should be our "best work", and I have clearly stated and over again that this one is not. (I'm not the only one who pointed this out; see Ucucha's comment above, and the previous discussion that was linked.) If you think this article represents Wikipedia's best work, then say so, but repeatedly giving vague waves at "not in WIAFA" does nothing to foster a constructive discussion. If you're unable to think critically about the quality of articles and can't do anything but cite bullet points of WIAFA, I don't see why you even want to contribute here. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to get alittle loud when things don't go your way. I'm not replying to you any further other than to say that unless you can show me that this article was not properly reaserched I'm not changing my vote. Acer (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep - I really dislike that half the article is sourced from just one source, but it appears that DANFS is the most comprehensive source on this topic. If anybody can show that that is not the case, I'd like to know so I can change my vote to delist. Oh, the issue of using PD text; its use here conforms to established policy so its presence is not a valid reason for de-listing. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please point to the "established policy" that this conforms to. WP:PLAGIARISM is a guideline, not a policy, and it doesn't say anything about FAs (it says copy-paste may be acceptable from a copyright perspective, not that FAs should include copy-paste text). And if FAs are supposed to be the project's best work, why are you voting to keep an article that you clearly feel uncomfortable about? And why the need to feel so constrained by established practice? Established practice changes, and this is exactly how it does&mdash;by identifying cases where the established practice makes us feel uncomfortable, and working to correct them. (Remember IAR: if an "established practice" prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, in this case by not featuring junk, then it should be ignored; improving the encyclopedia is more important than following some arbitrary guidelines that are no more than means to an end.) <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Copyright policy on the inclusion of PD/free content text. Been established since the first year of the project. The big issue, as I see it here, is possible over-reliance on a single source. However, I can't prove that and my searches indicate that DANFS is likely the most substantial source for this topic. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My searching indicated the same. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But as I already said, copyright policy is not the same as FA standards. Copyright policy establishes the bare minimum for acceptable practice, it absolutely does not establish FA standards. Saying "well, it's not quite copyvio" is far different from saying "it's some of the best work on Wikipedia". FA criteria are not bare-minimum criteria, so I don't see why people want to waste time saying "but it's not copyvio!". If you believe this is some of the best work on Wikipedia, say so, but don't keep bringing up completely irrelevant policies. If you actually read the nomination statement, you could see that I never said this article violates copyright; I said it's a crappy article. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rjanag, it might be better if you simply allow other editors who are commenting to make their comments. Others who would like to know your opinion can read the above discussions. Just because you believe that copy/paste jobs don't represent WPs best content doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you (obviously, since at the moment you are the sole delist vote). If you think the quality of research is poor, give examples - what other sources should be used instead? If you believe the quality of writing is poor, give examples - which areas, exactly? Drop the copy-vio/copy-paste issue, because it has nothing to do with this discussion, except possibly indirectly if sourcing or prose needs to be improved. If these last two are so, provide specific examples, rather than just harping on the copy-paste. Other editors only keep bringing it up and quoting policy at you because you are so focused on it... Dana boomer (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said this was a "copy-vio" issue, so unless you're trying to misrepresent my position I don't see why you're telling me to "drop the copy-vio issue" that I never brought up. Please don't misrepresent my position. If you wanted to say that you think the article is good work, you should have just said that instead of making irrelevant comments about the copyright status. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist. Plagiarism is unacceptable in any article, never mind an FA. As a result of the extensive copy and pasting the prose is archaic in places, such as "... Bridgeport sailed for the Azores as part of a goodly company of ships" or "... Bridgeport supported the destroyers' evolutions through mid-June". The article needs to be rewritten in a more contemporary style. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist - Apart from the wholesale use of PD text, which I think is quite dubious ethically, I don't think this article represents our best work. Poor, badly worded prose is my main reason for delisting, and I think the prose needs a complete rework; at the very least, for crying out loud, paraphrase the damn DANFS text! Skinny87 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist on grounds of poor writing. The PD text is all cited as to its source, although it should have been enclosed in quotation marks or a block quote. But the text reads awkwardly and is full of extraneous details of no real interest to the reader. As an obscure ship the article's reliance on DANFS is only natural and cannot be held against it, no matter how much we may look for multiple sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.