Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMAS Sydney (1934)/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 Karanacs 17:48, 18 August 2009 [1].

---

HMAS Sydney (1934)

Nominator(s): ShipFan (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/HMAS Sydney (1934)/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because it provides comprehensive but concise information on the topic, has passed GA status and is considered high importance to two Wikiprojects. The Board of Investigation has concluded and a summary of the findings is included. If accepted, I would like to suggest the FA date be 2009-11-22, the 75th anniversary of the ship's launch. ShipFan (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Were the significant contributors to this article consulted before the nomination? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 9 months ago. The proposal was to wait until the Board of Investigation concluded. This has now happened and reliable secondary sources have had time to mull over the findings. ShipFan (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I really think there should have been another discussion about whether this was ready, particularly a a note on the talkpage. As it is, there was no recent discussion on it. I suggest you ask the main contributor (s) about whether they want this to continue. Woody (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Has this been updated to take into account of BoI info? I can help on the non-content things but some of the footnotes just say "secondary sources". Is this in addition to the named book or simply to indicate that the book is #2? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!)paid editing=POV 01:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: Just a couple of things for the time being —
  • According to the tools there are a number of dab links that need fixing (Battle of the Strait of Otranto, Supermarine Seagull, Tyne, Zealandia) done
  • According to the tools there are a number of dead links (Who Sank the Sydney?; HMAS Sydney II and the Kormoran, The Raider Kormoran, HMAS Sydney: Fact, Fantasy and Fraud).
  • In the Construction and commissioning subsection, the last sentence needs a citation for the date and place of being commissioned
  • In the World War II subsection, the last sentence beginning with "On 27 February..." needs a citation
  • In the Final battle and disappeance section, the last part of the first paragraph, ending with "or suspicious vessels" needs a citation;
  • In the same section, the last paragraph starting with "It was not until six days..." needs a citation;
  • In the Floating wreckage from Sydney section, the last sentence in the first paragraph beginning with "Until the discovery..." needs a citation;

I will take a longer look soon. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the article is ready for a Featured Article run yet. Regarding the claim that "now the inquiry is over, its time to FA"...the inquiry closed just under a week ago (as of this posting). I doubt that this is sufficient time for the findings to be analysed (and these analyses published) by naval/maritime/military historians, as opposed to journalists trying to 'get the story out first', which is what the section on the inquiry is currently based on (I was the editor who added the content on the report's findings, based on the first few news articles published). Because of the importance attributed to this ship and her loss, at the very least we should wait until such analyses are published so they can be incorporated into the article.

I also think that the article as it stands fails Featured Article Criteria 1(b) and (c), as it is not a comprehensive work on the vessel, and the sources used are not a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Part of my reasoning for this relates to the abovementioned issue. On top of this, I think that the history of the ship has the potential to be significantly expanded, which could be done from the wealth of published work on the ship (for example, Libraries Australia lists 100-plus works in the subject classification "Sydney (Cruiser: 1934-1941)").

Improving this to FA status would not be too difficult for the regular contributors to the article, but they should be able to do this in their own time and at their own agreement, and nominate the article when they decide it is ready, instead of one minor contributor deciding that as the inquiry into the loss has just finished, now is the time to nominate the article, based on a brief, 9-month old conversation. -- saberwyn 11:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose While this article is in OK shape and the nomination has clearly been made in good faith, it isn't at A class status, much less FA status. Examples of its shortcomings are:
  • Not all material is covered by citations
  • The coverage of the ship's service career is sketchy at best. There's nothing at all on what she did in 1937, 1938 and most of 1939 and the coverage of her war service is much shorter than it should be given the dozens of books written about this very famous ship and the campaigns she fought in.
  • Reflecting this, many important sources on the ship haven't been consulted or adequately used. For example, there's nothing from Herman G. Gill's official history of the RAN in World War II or Tom Frame's excellent book HMAS Sydney Loss & Controversy, which was recently republished, or the Parliamentary inquiry into the ship's loss which was conducted a few years ago (all submissions and the final report are available online). Almost no use has been made of material from the recently completed inquiry into her sinking.
  • There's nothing on the controversy surrounding the cause of her loss and the unsuccessful efforts to find her.
• Given the article's present shortcomings, I'd suggest that this nomination be withdrawn. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Even as one of the primary contributors to the article (I took it to GA), I unfortunately have to agree with the comments above that it's far from ready for FA. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Now that several editors (including the primary contributor) have said the article is not ready, should this FAC be withdrawn? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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