Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of largest cruise ships/archive1

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [1].

---

List of largest cruise ships

List of largest cruise ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of largest cruise ships/archive1

Nominator(s): Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have spent some time cleaning up this list line-by-line, and I believe it is accurate and fully referenced enough to qualify as a featured list. A peer review only uncovered a minor copyediting detail, which has been resolved. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Needs an actual lead. Consider mentioning info from Timeline of largest passenger ships in it. Looking at just the source for Symphony of the Seas, "Double" and "Maximum" passengers needs to be clarified as guests vs. including crew. This can be done in the lead, but is this consistent? Citation 9 for the Costa Smeralda does not appear to mention 5,224 in it: citation 10 says 6,554 passengers and 8,200 passengers and crew. These were the only two I even checked... Reywas92^Talk 01:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Reywas92: I've expanded the lead a bit. Both "Double" and "Maximum" are under a heading that says "Passenger capacity", hence why the Smeralda lists 6554. Symphony of the Seas (and all the other rows, as far as I know) only list passenger capacity, excluding crew. By default, double occupancy is twice the number of cabins unless specified otherwise (some ships have "single" rooms that are not doubled when counting double occupancy), but I'll clarify that in the lead. Not sure what's going on with passenger citation in the Smeralda line however -- I could've sworn that the passenger citation was to the manufacturer (Meyer Werft), I must've kept the wrong one when I was pruning. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 03:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Reywas92: I've vastly expanded the lead since late February, and clarified all of the column headings. I'd appreciate your thoughts. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Some of it is decent, but a lot is just generic information about cruise ships. "Operators of cruise ships are known as cruise lines, which are companies that market cruises to the public." "Cruise ships require electricity for powering both hotel services and for propulsion." Certain brands being for party ships or classic elegance is irrelevant to this list – Holland America isn't even in the list! The WP:LEAD should focus more on summarizing the rest of the article, so it should relate explicitly how the biggest ships are the party ships, or perhaps which new ones use LNG. The intros to the sections are great, but if I just read the lead without knowing the page's title, I'd have no idea what was coming next. Reywas92^Talk 17:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Reywas92: Thanks for the feedback. Some of that text was copied from Cruise ship with the intention to reword it to relate to ship size, but I seem to have forgotted to do that in some places. I have updated it to try to tie it back to size -- for example, the intention with the Carnival vs. Holland America was to point out that Carnival has larger ships while Holland America has smaller ones. With the electricity sentence, the goal was to point out that using electricity for propulsion has allowed ships to grow longer, but I hadn't made that clear (it should be fixed now). I had also intended to point out that the switch to LNG required larger ships since the fuel takes up more space, but upon reviewing the sources, it turns out that there are ways around that, so I removed the LNG mention from the lead. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• The paragraph above the first table is not really a summary of the table, but it appears to be footnotes of the table itself, but in paragraph form? Suggest moving "Year indicates the year the ship originally entered service, which in some cases may not the year it started service under the listed cruise line or with the listed name." to a footnote beside the year column. The remainder can be a footnote for appropriate sections for example "Registro Italiano Navale only list length between perpendiculars, not length overall," should be a footnote for every ship in which this is true.
• Phrases like "The following is a list of cruise ships" is no longer considered acceptable for featured lists as it is tautological, and should be removed. The entire second paragraph reads like the same description of the table itself, not the contents of the table, which is what the lead should be. Once this information about the list is moved to footnotes or legend where appropriate. After this there is not much of a lead left. A lead should summarize the contents of the table. And needs quite a bit of work.
• The on order section requires similar work, there is no paragraph describing the contents of the list, just another footnote related comment.

Overall, there is a serious lack of information in the lead, and in the two subsections, both of which are required for featured list. Remember the lead is to provide context, and summarize the contents of the table, not instructions on how to read the table itself.

Oppose for now, as there requires quite a bit of work to bring this up to standards. The table itself is pretty good though, so I can scratch my opposition once the lead and two subsections contains some prose. Mattximus (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Thanks for the thoughtful review. One quick question: WP:SALLEAD says that the lead should make direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. Do you have any advice on doing this without a "The following is a list of..." sentence? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• That link provides a checklist of exactly what is missing...!

• begin with a lead section that summarizes its content (maybe what is the largest current ship, or any other ship of significance, you need to talk about the ships from your tables, especially in relation to their size)
• provides any necessary background information (this could involve history)
• gives encyclopedic context (including linking to other pages)
• Makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected - to answer your question, something like this "There are x cruise ships over x tonnes currently in service" is better than "this is a list of cruise ships over x tonnes". This should be done before each table.

Mattximus (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mattximus: I've added text to the lead and to the two sections. I'd appreciate your thoughts. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The lead is much better now! I strike my oppose. I would add two things however. First, I would put an image of the world's largest cruise ship right at the top (with a caption stating it's name and the fact that it's the largest, with alt-text), and I would add one line at the end of the first paragraph of the lead mentioning that Symphony of the Seas is the largest and give its gross tonnage. Both these changes don't warrant an oppose so I will preemptively Support. Nice work! Mattximus (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mattximus:  Done Thanks! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I just noticed the year ordered does not sort properly due to the addition of "May". There are date template that I believe can fix this. Mattximus (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Mattximus: There are templates such as {{Date table sorting}}, but in this case I just removed the month, since the column is titled "Year (planned)", not "Date (planned)". --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 22:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

;Comments on the lead I would merge the first two paragraphs, given that the first is only two sentences long. Wouldn't hurt to put (GT) after gross tonnage, given that you then go on to use the initials exclusively Comma after mid-1990s should be a semi-colon Think that's all I have on the lead. Will get to the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Most of my comments on the table relate to the headings: Ship Name does not need a capital N There's a stray full stop after Length Overall, which shouldn't be there Is there a way to clarify (either via a footnote or a wikilink) what "beam" (and its two "sub-types" ) are? Same for "staterooms" - does that just mean passenger cabins? Also what are the two types of capacity? I am not hugely familiar with cruise ships (although I have been on one cruise!) and don't know precisely what these terms mean...... Some cells are blank - is this because the info is unknown? Note c on both tables aren't complete sentences so don't need a full stop Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: I think I've resolved most of these. I added wikilinks and footnotes as appropriate, and marked the blank cells as unknown.

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments (WikiCup entry) "ocean liner" is overlinked. No need to link basic words like "hotel". "The current largest " really should be "As of June 2020, the largest..." No need to link basic words like "company". "over 120,000 in " GT presuambly? "over 120,000 in service. The first ships to exceed 120,000 GT" repetitive. "the next largest " next-largest. Avoid use of hash to mean "number", per MOS:HASH. I think the row scope should be on the ship name, not the number. Image column doesn't need to be sortable, I mean what is it actually sorting against?? "47.778 m" are we really measuring to the nearest mm?? Masses of overlinks in the "On order" section e.g. RCI, RCCL, Dream Cruises, MSC Cruises etc. Use the tool to identify and eliminate them all. Should World- and Triton- be in italics? Same comments about HASH and row scope apply to the on-order table. Update and format ISBNs consistently. AVOID SHOUTING in ref titles. That's all I have on a quick run through. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the feedback. I took care of most of those, with a few exceptions. First, I was under the impression that "scope" could only apply to header cells, are you saying that the ship names should be made into header cells? Second, per WP:SHIPNAME#Using ship class names in articles, class names are only italicized when they are named after a ship, and there is no MSC World or Disney Triton. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC) I'm saying the ship names should be the cells which take the row scope. See this. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC) It's the "key item" that needs the scope, and that's the actual ship, not the rank. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I wasn't aware you could do that. It should be all set now. Thanks! --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 01:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support really nice piece of work, well done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review – The referencing requires quite a bit of cleanup work before this can be promoted: What makes any of the following reliable sources? Travel industry dictionary (ref 17) Cruise Fever (ref 167) Cruiser Critic (ref 171) References 8, 10, and 16 are missing page numbers. The formatting of ref 15 is broken. The capitalization of Cruise Industry News is inconsistent in refs 19 and 20. Ref 193 also has a different style. These should be made consistent throughout the referencing. The titles of refs 174 and 190 have all caps that need removal per the Manual of Style. Refs 30 and 170 are missing publishers. Meyer Werft is fully capitalized almost everywhere I see it, in both ref titles and publishers, which is not the case in our article on the topic. All caps are discouraged by the Manual of Style, so I recommend taking them out when necessary. The second word of USA Today probably shouldn't be capitalized in ref 160. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks Giants2008. I cleaned up the issues you highlighted: Reliable sources: Removed that reference. References generally aren't needed for dictionary definitions of words. I couldn't find a better reference for that sentence, so I reworded it and added citations to the cruise line and to The Telegraph Replaced with the Orlando Sentinel Added page numbers for refs 8 and 16. I was only able to get ahold of an ebook copy of Ref 10 so I used the chapter name. Fixed Ref 15 Changed to "Cruise Industry News" everywhere. Changed 174 and 190 to Title Case Added work and publisher to ref 30, changed ref 170 to use {{cite press release}} and added publisher Changed to "Meyer Werft" throughout Changed to "USA Today" throughout --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 23:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• I checked all of the fixes above, and the only outstanding issue I see is that ref 174 still has the all caps in part of the title. Nice work fixing the rest of the concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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