Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Kroonland

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [1].

SS Kroonland[edit]

Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

This is an article about a 1902 ocean liner, SS Kroonland, that was, at the time of her building, the largest ship ever constructed in the United States. During her 25-year career she was the first ship to use wireless while in distress; she was one of eleven ships that came to the aid of the burning liner Volturno in the North Atlantic (for which some of her crew were awarded Congressional Gold Medals); for a time, she held the record as the largest passenger ship to transit the Panama Canal; and she was attacked in World War I by a German submarine whose torpedoes failed to detonate.

The article passed a Military History A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should prob. wait until your other nomination has some supports; that's generally the rule... I've had Sandy yell at me before. :( JonCatalán(Talk) 05:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've had two simultaneous FACs before, so I wasn't aware of any unwritten rules about multiple nominations. If it's, indeed, a problem, holding off on this one would be OK by me. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an unwritten rule, it is a written rule. Please see the third paragraph of the instructions, above.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bellhalla's FACs are usually clean and don't require extensive work (as in, images, sources, copyediting, MoS): I'm Ok with both continuing, as the noms aren't usually hard on reviewer time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I swear I had done both of those before, they should both be fixed now. I've also replaced "p." with "pp." for all page ranges in references (I'm bad about that), per your edit summary for this edit. There are quite a few page references for the early Los Angeles Times that may appear to be page ranges, like "I-3", but that's the notation for section Roman numeral I, page 3. I had used a hyphen to keep references from being confused for a different number, like 13 in this case. If this looks too much like a page range as is, I'm open to ideas to help alleviate the ambiguity. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — all images are in the public domain or appropriately licensed, except the following:

A bureaucratic hassle but something that has to be worked out to ensure a correct license is applied. Licensing experts please weigh in and help. Jappalang (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The license on the first photo has been updated to {{PD-US}} as it was published on 19 March 1917 in the Los Angeles Times. (pdf available via e-mail for anyone so interested.)
  • I can find no corresponding pre-1923 publication of the camouflage image (which I really hate to lose), but I have replaced it with another suitable (and suitably licensed, I hope) image.
Thanks for taking the time to review the images. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bellhalla's actions, all image issues have been addressed. Jappalang (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came to this article expecting to enter a Support, as Bellhalla's articles are well-organized, well-written, well-referenced, and display a competent command of the subject area. This one is no exception. My reservation here is for what I believe to be excessive detail; a typical reader does not need to know detailed lists of passengers, cargo, and the identities of other ships in convoys.

Perhaps others may question whether this concern is actionable, or to put it another way, can too much comprehensiveness get in the way of good writing? (My view: good writing is as much a practice of deciding what to leave out, as what to put in.) It is difficult to know what to cut, especially when an author has amassed a lot of detail, but this article would not suffer, and could be improved, by pruning the excess detail. Consequently I do not support, but will not enter an Oppose yet, in recognition that my views may be a matter of preference. Comments by others on this question may be helpful. Kablammo (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy—needs work on the prose Support.

The writing is OK in places, although I could spend 60 minutes cleaning up details; for example:
"During her time on the New York – Antwerp route, Kroonland was frequently battered by storms typical in the North Atlantic. In November 1904, a Brussels news agency reported the rumor that Kroonland had foundered in one mid-ocean storm. The report—proven to be false when Kroonland safely docked in New York[18]—received wide coverage in the United States press.[19] The next month, while she was underway in a heavy gale, Kroonland was struck by what contemporary news accounts referred to as a "tidal wave". On 12 December, the large wave, reported as high as the tops of Kroonland's funnels, crashed over her deck, and brought the ship to a standstill. A Belgian passenger was thrown into a wall with a broken leg and a crewman on watch in the crow's nest was sent tumbling to the deck 40 feet (12 m) below with only minor injuries.[20]
  • "by the storms that were typical"
  • "a rumour"
  • "a mid-ocean storm"
  • "proved" perhaps, rather than the old-fashioned "proven".
  • "American press"
  • Remove "underway"
  • "The next month" time-orientation, then another with "On 12 December"; are these the same day?
  • "referred to as a "tidal wave" as high as the tops of Kroonland's funnel."
  • The wall had a broken leg? And it had a crewman on watch? Change word order and introduce a little punctuation.
There are things to fix all over the place. At random ... "After her fitting out was completed, Kroonland sailed on her maiden voyage". Remove two words.
It's overlinked: "foundered" is a normal English word. The link to Wiktionary of "ways", however, is reasonable, since it's a specialist nautical term. Why is "gale" linked? And "freshwater" and "funnel". "Launched" (piped to "ship launching") is more reasonable, though. Please draw the line higher.
I've given up fighting the battle about calling ships women. But the continual use of "she" and "her" in a few places (like the lead) will grate on any prose reader, even the most old-fashioned. We have "her", "she", "she" in the first sentence and a bit. It needs sifting through and the changing of a few of these to "the ship" or "Kroonland" to avoid close repetition. Tony (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Please don't just correct these matters and come back saying "Ready". The bullets above are from one single para. They exemplify. Tony (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, are the bullet points what you think should be there? If so, why the British spelling for rumor? — Bellhalla (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops: I usually copy and paste, but typed that afresh; my native spelling twitch took over. Yes, the bullets are my suggestions for what should be there, minus that mistake. Tony (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've gone through and scaled back some of the linking and worked on tightening up the prose throughout the article. Can you take a look and see what other suggestions you might have? — Bellhalla (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is looking good. --Laser brain (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose, 1a. This is a good read, thorough and well-researched, but the prose isn't up to par. It's probably difficult to get someone to go through it because of its length, but it really needs some solid time with a fresh copyeditor. I've listed some examples from the first few sections; I stopped listing after getting mired in this many so soon:[reply]
    • "According to The New York Times, Kroonland was the first ship in distress to use radio to call for help after suffering storm damage in December 1903." What does the phrase "in distress" do here? It is clear the ship was in distress, and unclear why a ship would radio for help otherwise.
    • "Placed back in transatlantic service, Kroonland became one of the first seven U.S. ships to be defensively armed against German submarines." It's best not to split the verb phrase "be armed" with the adverb. In such cases, move the adverb to the right of the verb phrase.
      • Good point. Since defensively armed is a specific phrase from the source, I've recast the sentence to avoid the infinitive use completely. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... with the construction of the American pair was well underway." Grammar, please revise.
    • Speaking to Tony's point above about the use of "her" and "she", I agree. It sounds antiquated and should be used extremely sparingly. An example of a sentence where it could be removed completely is: "Kroonland had eleven watertight compartments with reinforced bulkheads, and was designed to remain afloat with up to two of her compartments flooded." In this case, taking out "of her" wouldn't change the meaning.
      • The specific example you cited has been changed as suggested. As to your main point about she/her usage, it is a permissible style per the Military history style guide (a part of the MOS). As a note, I try to balance she and her usage with Kroonland and the ship. It seems to me just using either Kroonland or the ship every time would generate comments of repetitive phrasing. (Maybe it's a can't-win proposition?) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it is a subjective matter. I've stated my opinion, but for me this particular issue isn't a deal-breaker. Thanks for your consideration. --Laser brain (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Third-class passenger accommodations were located on the main deck: three compartments for men located forward, and a single compartment for families was at the rear with state rooms containing two, four, or six bunks." Parallel structure lacking.
      • Fixed, and split into two sentences. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The upper deck primarily housed facilities for officers and first- and second-class passengers." This ids an example of ambiguous adverb placement. As placed, the meaning is that the upper deck housed facilities but served other purposes. Moving the adverb after "facilities" would mean that the upper deck only housed facilities, primarily for the parties listed. Which is correct?
      • It is the former meaning, but since I don't have any source that specifically tells me that, say, the bridge of the ship was on the upper deck, I've eliminated the primarily. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... was the first-class dining room that spanned the width of the ship." As worded, leaves the notion that there might be others. To fix: "... was the first class dining room, spanning the width of the ship."
      • First- and second- and third-class are used to describe facilities for passengers of each of the three classes. I've edited the section to try to make it clear that, for example, it's the first-class passenger dining room and not just a really-neat-best-ever dining room. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The promenade deck housed the first-class passenger library and smoking room." Until now, you've said "first-class room"; why the change?
      • I'm not quite clear on what you're saying here (?) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review. I'll see if I can get someone to copy-edit the article. In the meantime, I've addressed the specific items you mentioned above. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - will give this a copyedit soon; hope to get to it tonight or tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished a full copyedit; if I've done my job well, there should be few prose concerns remaining. This is a thoroughly researched and incredibly detailed article. I enjoyed much of the detail on other ships/passengers, as it vividly placed the article in the context of the times—but the details were sometimes overwhelming, and the overall length is...oppressive. This may be one of the vanishingly few cases where we know more about a ship's history than we can write about. Will ponder this dilemma overnight. Maralia (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have pinged Tony and Laser brain to revisit in light of Maralia's copyedit. BuddingJournalist 18:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will revisit within the next 12 hours. Thanks for the note. --Laser brain (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the MilHist guideline on "she", but the sheer density of female pronouns, particularly at the start. We have her, she, sister, sister, her, she, her, she, she in the first five sentences. I'm taking three out now, just by removing them and replacing them with nothing. That's easy. Tony (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A well-written, seemingly-comprehensive and interesting article. I made one edit that the nominator may disagree with. There is an argument that the notional agreement should be used, but I felt it should be consistent with the rest of the article; "crew" takes the singular throughout. Feel free to revert. Nice work, Steve T • C 23:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have made some copyedits to half of the article and intend to do the other half later today or tomorrow. I have been addressing Tony's comments as well as my own personal copyedit findings. These are not enough to prevent FA status and are rather minor. The article meets FA criteria. NancyHeise talk 17:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up - I have now finished the copyedit addressing Tony's comments and my own. NancyHeise talk 02:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No complaints here. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SS_Kroonland&oldid=1088821987"