Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Island/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Ford Island edit

Nominator(s): v/r - TP 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the island at the center of the attacks on Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. I recently got stationed on Pearl Harbor and for the first two months here I was staying on this island at the Navy Lodge. I initially wrote Admiral Clarey Bridge which leads to this island. Then I started improving this article and I realized there was a lot of material that could be covered outside of the attacks themselves. I received help from User:Mareklug and User:Mark Miller and they should both receive credit if this is accepted.

This article has been peer reviewed and given an A-class review by the MilHist project. I am trying to get this accepted before Dec 7 so it can be featured on the main page on that day. I know it's a tight schedule and it's my fault for sitting on the A-class review for 3 months. I apologize. I hope ya'all can work with me on this one.v/r - TP 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review here.--v/r - TP 23:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero edit

Ooh, if you need it on the main page on December 7, it'll need to be accepted probably a couple of weeks before that, per the processing speed of WP:TFAR. I don't have time right this second (actually, I really need to be studying), but I'll try to start giving my opinions here later today, though I'm not a big MILHIST guy or World War II buff. Best of luck. Tezero (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. Yeah, I gave Bencherlite a heads up a few months ago about what I was up to. I'm just hoping the stars align at this point. It's completely my fault for sitting on the ACR. Life had become pretty busy and I was trying to chip away at the ACR needs a few at a time.--v/r - TP 17:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I have a GAN that's been on hold since, like, the start of August because I keep putting off working on it and don't have a whole lot of sources for things that the reviewer has decided are necessary to include. Actually, I should probably just request he fail it and thank him for his time until I can actually get it up to snuff, now that I think about it. Things happen. Tezero (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, time to get down to business and defeat the Huns:

  • "with landfill from the dredging of Pearl Harbor." - a bit confusing
    • Can you tell me which part is confusing? Let me try to explain what that means: Pearl Harbor was originally called Pearl river. It was deep enough for the ships in the 1700s and 1800s to get through, but as the United States started to build battleships in the 1880s, it became necessary to deeper harbors. A underwater trench was dug (as seen in this map) to allow the ships to transverse the river up into the lochs. The east loch was also deepened to allow mooring within the loch and it was deepened around Ford Island, specifically, to allow ships to turn around and exit. Land that was dug up from under water was used to increase the size of Ford Island by nearly a full third.--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done I also found out that land fill and landfill mean two different things. So I corrected inappropriate instances of that word.--v/r - TP 01:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The organization of the lead baffles me. It's... mostly chronological, but with stuff like the 2011 designation as an endangered site thrown in at odd places. Mind explaining what you were going for, or doing a clearer, more consistent organization scheme?
    • I organized it chronologically with grouping of similar topics. So because I mentioned it becoming a national historic landmark in 1964, I also mentioned the historic endangered list in the same sentence even though it's 2011. If I did it completely chronological then I'd have to use simple sentences and someone cautioned me against that. I'm willing to go with whatever you suggest though.--v/r - TP 23:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The island has been featured in films such as Tora! Tora! Tora! and Pearl Harbor," - ditch the comma
    •  Done--v/r - TP 01:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ford Island is in the center of the East Loch of Pearl Harbor" - I know, stupid American who doesn't know his own history or geography reporting in, but... Pearl Harbor has lochs? Can you give a very brief rundown in the article of Pearl Harbor's structure? I don't imagine most Americans know, especially without even giving a link to Pearl Harbor there.
    • No problemo. There is the East Loch, Middle Loch, and West Loch. Most of the active base is around the East Loch.--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Erm... I mean, in the article. Tezero (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Righteo, I gotcha. I was just sharing.--v/r - TP 23:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done--v/r - TP 02:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if Flora and fauna couldn't be expanded. I know nothing about the life forms in Pearl Harbor, other than that the humans there are probably either timid or tourists. Are any life forms typical of Pearl Harbor also found on Ford Island?
    • The island is quite barren since the Army took it over. Mostly pavement and building, grass and trees. I'll see if there is anything else I can dig up, but I really doubt it.--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor note, but when discussing the name of the island you should probably throw a link to Hawaiian language somewhere.
OK, I think I have this figured out now. Originally there was some conflicting information about the interpretation or translation of the name and how to reference that. Reliable sources are firm on the interpretation but the direct translation and mention of the Hawaiian language is an important detail. No need to change any existing reference but simply add a small referenced line. I used both the online dictionary and a book source. For now I'll add both and we can trim off anything that doesn't work for FA. The translation is simply: "Moku (island, inlet) and 'ume (1- To draw, attract or entice. 2- Sexual game of the common people. Because opposite sexes are attracted to each other, the word ʻUme is used in the name ("kilu" is the game chiefs' would engage in). --Mark Miller (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Let me know if the addition needs more work.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't stand one-line paragraphs. Can you expand the middle one in Ancient Hawaiians or merge it somewhere?
    •  Done--v/r - TP 01:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider italicizing or double-quoting the various names used for the island when they're discussed as names, e.g. Rabbits Island, Moku'ume'ume.
    •  Done--v/r - TP 02:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "9 February 1818", "28 August 1865", etc. - pfft, you might as well just be burning an American flag, commie.
    •  Done I'm in the USAF and this is the date format we use in the military. It's habit.--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who believed that the land was fertile, sacred and could not be owned by anyone" - grammar; it should be "was fertile, was sacred, and could not be owned by anyone" or "was fertile, sacred, and unable to be owned by anyone".
  • The empty space in the table's a little strange. I'd prefer making it a closed-in space and simply nulling it out with an em-dash or coloring it grey.
    • Which table? Is it the "Army Air Force Aircraft at Luke Field" or "Ford Island Air Traffic Statistics"?--v/r - TP 22:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • First one. Sorry. Tezero (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few redlinks in the article. Yes, I know, this isn't a requirement, and I won't push it if you're not interested, but I think it'd look better if you either delinked them or redirected them somewhere.
    • (not the nom or a contributor, just another commenter) Is removing redlinks a common FAC suggestion? Protonk (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could probably create a few stubs, no problem. I'll do that later today.--v/r - TP 22:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was headquarters of Patrol Wing Two" - shouldn't it be "was the headquarters"?
    •  Done--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Ford Island" - I don't understand this section title. It might help if some of the words were de-capitalized.
    • NALF Ford Island was it's name. I could possibly cut out the "Ford Island" part of it and leave it as "Naval Auxiliary Landing Field". Would that help?--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I so want to chime in here with:  Not done. I was taught by my English Composition teacher (who also read in Anglo-Saxon to us for extra fun) that if something is at first confusing but on inspection passes muster, it is fine. This really is the name, and it is fine. One might consider reusing that full name in text soon after the heading to reinforce, but absolutely, Tom, don't fix what ain't broke. Kind regards, --Mareklug talk 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It could possibly be shortened to NALF Ford Island - that would be an appropriate abbreviation.--v/r - TP 19:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two short paragraphs again at the beginning of Film and television. You could probably just merge them.
    •  Done--v/r - TP 02:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "F" used as an index for the "Attack on Pearl Harbor" category? The page is already called "Ford Island".
    •  Done--v/r - TP 02:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise with the "United States Naval Auxiliary Landing Fields" category.
    •  Done--v/r - TP 02:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably it for me; take a look at these when you have the time. Looks nice. Tezero (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support; I still don't get that six-word capitalized section title, but whatever; I ain't gonna withhold support just for that. Tezero (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Protonk edit

I'll have some specific comments later, but I'll broadly support this for FA. See my comments on the A-Class review for some color on the suggestions I've made so far. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made a few copy-edit so far. Struggling to find some more actionable suggestions. :) Protonk (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • You're sometimes including multiple authors in short cites, sometimes just the first - should be consistent
    • Done. I only found this happen once. With regards to the Dorrance cite, there are two different citations from William Dorrance. One has multiple authors, one is just him.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how author names are formatted - sometimes you have last name first, other times first name, still other times a mix
    • Done.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when or whether you include publication locations
    • All done.--v/r - TP 00:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing full bibliographic details for Lee 1966
    • Done.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare FNs 25 and 59
    • Done.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Prange 1987 or 1988?
    • Done.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper names should consistently be italicized
    • Done.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6: where does this page range end? Same with FN14, 21, 22
    • Done.--v/r - TP 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN7: why is the format at the beginning of the citation?
    • That's part of the {{cite report}} template. I could remove the format.--v/r - TP 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 11 and 12: publisher, page numbers?
    • Done.--v/r - TP 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN35's formatting doesn't match the style of the rest of the citations
    • Done.--v/r - TP 20:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN57: you've got the Command italicized here and the Library listed as publisher - neither is true of other cites like FN69, 76, etc
    • Done. Turns out that this citation is a copy/paste from a book. I changed the citation to reflect the original publication instead of the website.--v/r - TP 20:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN78: page?
    • Done.--v/r - TP 21:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN84: title, accessdate?
    • Done.--v/r - TP 21:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN93: publisher?
    • Done.--v/r - TP 21:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN96 is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.--v/r - TP 21:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "As the Vietnam War escalated, the U.S. Pacific Fleet required an intelligence branch in addition to the one in Guam.[1] The Fleet Intelligence Center, Pacific (FICPAC) opened on Ford Island in 1955, although the new office had little to do with Admiral Chester W. Nimitz's Joint Intelligence Center Pacific Area (which had been formed a decade earlier and then moved to Guam).[1][2] In 1962 the Navy decommissioned Naval Station Ford Island, although the island continued to be controlled by the Navy as a sub-component of Naval Air Station Pearl Harbor.": I'm not following your train of thought here.
    • Done. I rewrote the paragraph.--v/r - TP 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the undertaking were about to begin": Something's wrong in that quote.
    • Done. That is a direct quote, so I added the {{sic}} template.--v/r - TP 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I copyedited some of this at A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - After my comments at PR, this has only improved. Do you still need an image review? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the offer, image review was done in the ACR. Thanks for the support as well.--v/r - TP 20:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might want to leave a note to that effect for the delegates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Roger, left it above.--v/r - TP 23:44, 9 November 2014 (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/Ford_Island/archive1&oldid=635745447"