Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SS Timothy Bloodworth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SS Timothy Bloodworth[edit]
- Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article just emerged from its second AFD but I think it's A-Class material after a recent expansion. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the 24 December update to Template:Cite web has broken several alternate retrieval date parameters which are used by many references in this article. I have placed an
{{editprotected}}request at Template talk:Cite web requesting a reversion to the formerly working code. When either that is accomplished, or the alternate parameters are added to the newer code, the retrieval dates will once again appear. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport
- Is there really not a single picture available? Even if you'd have to use a Fair-use tag, it seems that a picture actually of her would be nice, or at least of her in convoy or something.
- None that I have found.
- "Timothy Bloodworth's whereabouts on 16 December 1944 are not reported, but on that date—the beginning of the German Ardennes Offensive—two of her complement of Naval Armed Guardsmen were killed" How and why were they killed? This whole paragraph confuses me - you say the whereabouts are unknown, then say it was in Antwerp. Were the Guardsmen killed in a separate incident from the V-2, as it appears to say later?
- Wow, that was confusing, wasn't it? I've split the paragraph into two paragraphs that describe the separate attacks. I hope this makes what happened more clear.
- Is there something that the Grain Program of 1954 can be linked to, or if not, can it be explained a bit in the article?
- That wording is from the scanned custody card. I had originally left that wording in so as to try and expand on the topic, but a search for more specific information was fruitless. Rather than try and dig into US farm policy of the 1950s, I've eliminated that phrase from the article.
- Is there really not a single picture available? Even if you'd have to use a Fair-use tag, it seems that a picture actually of her would be nice, or at least of her in convoy or something.
- The Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (P.L. 480), which deals with sale and barter of surplus commodities and overseas relief.[1] Kablammo (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Kablammo, for finding that. I'm a bit hesitant, though, to make the connection to legislation signed on 10 July 1954, four days after the ship was withdrawn to load grain. There's also no indication in the source that the grain stored on the ship was for export. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; while it is reasonable to assume that a law which was under consideration and headed for passage for several months prior to enactment could inspire the withdrawal of a vessel from reserve prior to the president's signature, we do not know that. This may indicate alternatives. But I'm confused as to the origin of the phrase "Grain Program of 1954" as the card does not mention it. (Also, in this version of the article prior to your deletion of the phrase, footnotes 18 and 19 go to the same source.) Do you know where the Grain Program reference is from? I don't think it is important to the article, and if we cannot determine which (if any) "grain program" is involved it should stay out of the article. Kablammo (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The phrase is from the back of the custody card (it actually says "Grain Program 1954"; I unintentionally added the "of" in there.) The grain storage was probably under one of the US programs that purchased grains in surplus years for price controls.
- Thanks for the heads up on the ref links. Looking at it, I found that with the similar names and links, I had mangled all three. I've sorted out the mess to make sure that all now link to the proper record, and that all three are the proper reference for the facts mentioned in the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; while it is reasonable to assume that a law which was under consideration and headed for passage for several months prior to enactment could inspire the withdrawal of a vessel from reserve prior to the president's signature, we do not know that. This may indicate alternatives. But I'm confused as to the origin of the phrase "Grain Program of 1954" as the card does not mention it. (Also, in this version of the article prior to your deletion of the phrase, footnotes 18 and 19 go to the same source.) Do you know where the Grain Program reference is from? I don't think it is important to the article, and if we cannot determine which (if any) "grain program" is involved it should stay out of the article. Kablammo (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Kablammo, for finding that. I'm a bit hesitant, though, to make the connection to legislation signed on 10 July 1954, four days after the ship was withdrawn to load grain. There's also no indication in the source that the grain stored on the ship was for export. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (P.L. 480), which deals with sale and barter of surplus commodities and overseas relief.[1] Kablammo (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is a good article which meets all the criteria. I'm a little bit uncomfortable about the frequency with which it is stated that events in the ship's history are 'unreported in sources' and the like as this implies that all possible sources were consulted but records no longer exist - was this the case? (eg, are there primary sources on the ship which may or may not exist but which weren't consulted?). Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Valid point, Nick. The answer to your parenthetical question is yes. To take a look at one instance that you mention, the 16 December incident: the sole source I have that mentions it (the typically reliable usmm.org) gives the date and and the number of casualties but no other specifics. It seems important enough to mention in the article, but is there a better way to say, essentially, that I've reported all the information that's there? — Bellhalla (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I'm not sure. You could just say 'the ship was attacked' and not mention the lack of detail in the sources, but this is also unsatisfactory. Likewise, even if you had the time, resources and motivation to dig up primary sources (eg, the ship's records, if they still exist) this would be problematic under WP:OR. On further consideration, you probably handled this the right way. What do you think about saying that something is 'unreported in secondary sources' rather than 'unreported in sources'? Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I added in secondary (and linked secondary source on the first mention). — Bellhalla (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I'm not sure. You could just say 'the ship was attacked' and not mention the lack of detail in the sources, but this is also unsatisfactory. Likewise, even if you had the time, resources and motivation to dig up primary sources (eg, the ship's records, if they still exist) this would be problematic under WP:OR. On further consideration, you probably handled this the right way. What do you think about saying that something is 'unreported in secondary sources' rather than 'unreported in sources'? Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Valid point, Nick. The answer to your parenthetical question is yes. To take a look at one instance that you mention, the 16 December incident: the sole source I have that mentions it (the typically reliable usmm.org) gives the date and and the number of casualties but no other specifics. It seems important enough to mention in the article, but is there a better way to say, essentially, that I've reported all the information that's there? — Bellhalla (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I would have liked an image of the actual ship, but understand that sometimes that simply isn't possible. It meets all of our criteria I believe. The sources look good, reliable and well-formatted. The prose is good and flows ok. It seems to cover all available information, even if that isn't all that much available. No concerns here, looks good, well done. Woody (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.