Talk:2021 Suez Canal obstruction/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: JackFromReedsburg (talk · contribs) 02:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello PhotographyEdits, I will be reviewing this shortly. Expect comments in the next few days. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 02:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

General comments

• The IMO number should not be linked directly to commons in the prose. If you want to introduce them, please wikilink to the wikipedia article about them, so people aren't confused.
• For reference 31, you don't need to cite every sentence with the same cite, you can just cite the paragraph at the end.
• You will need to cite every {{citation needed}} template.
• "Needs update" and "When?" templates also need to be resolved.
• "The "complete disconnect of ship size development from developments in the actual economy" (OECD report, 2015[63]), and the corresponding limitations of existing infrastructure to handle them – a process evident in the Suez, where expansion work on the northern end of the canal has been ongoing – led to the incident being described by Michael Safi in The Guardian as a "worst-case scenario that many saw coming".[64]" is quite long and should be multiple sentences.
• All references seem generally reliable
• File:SUEZCANAL_SECTION.jpg is dubious. Please remove it, correctly tag it on commons, or replace it.
• Earwig report came up clean.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Discussion

I am putting this article on hold, as it needs several fixes before it can be promoted. Please let me know when you've made the changes and I will finish the review. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs)`

Not the original nominator, but will look at some of the issues since I've worked on this a lot.

1. IMO: working on that  Done
2. the next three points: I'll have to look that up see if it's just covered in existing sources, etc  Done Fixed the cn tags and the others I came upon
3. "Complete disconnect": blame me. Will see what I can come up with. Later I tried a few options but none seem to get the idea across as clearly as the current wording, without being awkward. Again that might be more of a symptom of the time of night when I'm writing. Will see if morning brings up clearer ideas.
4. Picture: that the canal has banks as shown is well known. Will see if I can come up with a source or a better image.  Done Ineligible for copyright as a simple chart so tag resolved on commons.

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional comment: I'm not sure whether the "coverage" and "stable" parts of GA are met, simply because this is still a developing story (legal wranglings over the ship and compensation; ongoing investigations...). To be exact, results for the investigation are expected shortly, since they said "two days" over the weekend..., but that doesn't resolve compensation claims and legal issues. Though, if we take the current article as it stands, it probably does cover all the points we know so far. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

As it stands currently, both criteria are met, although it may be useful to wait a week just in case any last minute developments are published. I don't see it necessary to wait for the slow legal developments, as those will most likely be suitable for an article of their own (Lawsuits regarding the 2021 Suez Canal obstruction, perhaps?). Definitely should be included once they happen.

IMO numbers should not link to commons in the prose.

About the "Complete disconnect", now that I've read it a few more times, the sentence is making more sense. An idea I've had is to just remove the part about the expansion work from that sentence, to cut down on its length. So at longest, The "complete disconnect of ship size development from developments in the actual economy" (OECD report, 2015), and the corresponding limitations of existing infrastructure to handle them, has led to the incident being described by Michael Safi in The Guardian as a "worst-case scenario that many saw coming". What do you think? JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 17:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@JackFromReedsburg: Thanks for closing. I don't think it's worth a separate section on the talk page, so going to continue here. How would you suggest handling the IMO numbers, then? The commons categories seem relevant, and well I don't know if there's a specific reason not to have them - the link appears in a different shade anyway, and it's not an external link so WP:ELNO doesn't seem to apply (the only alternative short of removing the links would be putting the IMO number, along with the link, as a footnote). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I do not think "current event" articles usually meet stability criteria. If it were up to me we would install a 6-mo or 1 year wait after the event before you can nominate. (t · c) buidhe 05:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• My thoughts are a bit different here: it isn't the stability issue, unless there is contentious material, it's the broadness and major aspects that are a problem this soon after the event. There's too much that isn't known yet, and too many significant aftereffects cannot be suitably addressed until the data is released over the next weeks and months. I'm not talking about legal developments, which can run for years, but resulting economic harm, both near- and medium term. I was surprised to see that the article had been nominated this early; it's simply too soon for sufficient necessary information to be available. (I doubt that all the ships affected have even reached their ultimate destinations, for example.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• After thinking about this some more, I recognize that waiting is the most appropriate option here. I will be failing this nomination, however I invite the editors to re-nominate it in a few months time once all necessary information is available. This article is well-written and just needs that last bit of information to make it truly ready for Good Article status. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Additional comment: I think it's worth re-checking the references again for reliability, factual accuracy, and also checking that they are cleanly formatted. As for "broadness" in coverage, a lot of the sections feel a little too specific, in my personal opinion. This is mainly because the sections either don't tend to summarize each stage of the incident succinct enough, or they are actually possess a lot of useful content but are written too long per section. As for "prose, spelling, and grammar", I think the focus would be to improve the "prose" part. Spelling and grammar should be fine overall, but whether the sentence structure and paragraph structure is clear enough is a bit questionable to me, but that's me personally. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @JackFromReedsburg: @Qwertyxp2000: So it seems that a legal settlement has reached, it might be worth to retry the nomination? Not sure what you think of that, let me know. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)