Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Port Chicago disaster

< 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 Karanacs 17:37, 17 March 2009 [1].

Port Chicago disaster edit

Nominator(s): Binksternet (talk)

This article has been recently edited to meet critical assessments made during its A-Class review. I believe it is now worthy of consideration for Featured status. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs (dabs checker tool)
  • Need to be fixed.
I deleted a link to ordnance which took the reader to a dab page giving the best match as Ammunition which I already had linked. I saw that courts-martial went through a redirect so I deleted that link, too, as I already had a link to court-martial. Otherwise, every link goes where I want it to go. Note that Concord Naval Weapons Station has long redirected to a few paragraphs within Concord, California but I just now peeled that stuff out and made it its own article. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref formatting
  • References from books, journals, magazines, etc. need to have the page number formatted as "p. 132" or "pp. 111-119"
I have seen other featured articles that use the formatting I chose; the use of bare numbers with no "p" or "pp". Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
External links
Dabs and ref formatting is also found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 01:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • You've run your publishers into your link titles for your web sources, they really need to go outside the link titles.
I moved every one of the publishers out to the front of the title of the piece, linking the title only.
  • Per the MOS, titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
Fixed. I found five or so instance of this.
  • CUrrent ref 7 (History.com..) is lacking a last access date.
Fixed.
  • Current ref 21 (National Park Service..) is lacking a last access date.
Fixed.
  • Current ref 33 (Federal Reserve...) is lacking a last access date
Fixed. Updated to 2009 dollars, a substantial drop from December 2008. :/
The only thing I got from that source was the interview with Carl Tuggle. In response to your concern, I edited the article to connect the reference more clearly with the text, putting Carl Tuggle's name and his experiences as related in the interview.
  • Current refs 93 and 94 (LA times and Berkely Daily planet) both have more bibliographical information available. Should give author, title of the article, etc.
Fixed. Used cite journal template. Added appropriate quotes.
That link was alive when I was putting it in in December! Looks like the conspiracy theorist is hanging it up. I'll link to an archived Wayback Machine version, and add something about his website's starting and stopping dates. Using cite template with archiveurl field. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the diff of my changes in response to Ealdgyth. Beyond the fixes asked for, I added these things:
  • Words from Carl Tuggle, with additional text for explanation.
  • A page number (203) for one of the Bell cites.
  • Changed a few YYYY-MM-DD dates to the common US civilian style "Month day, Year" format, for consistency.
  • Added a footnoted quote from Robert L. Allen made during his Berkeley Daily Planet interview.
  • Added a footnote quote from Vogel, taken from an archived webpage he used to have up.
  • Added text about Vogel's website starting and stopping.
Hope that clears up the differences between the article as it was at the start of FAC review and as it stands now! Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What A-class review did this article pass? There are several serious WP:MSH breaches; section headings should not include "the" and should not repeat the article name. There are several instances of "the" and even a section heading "The Port Chicago disaster", which is a complete repeat of the article name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language regarding use of "today" in a section heading, WP:LAYOUT regarding placement of portals and section headings, and WP:MOS#Captions (sentence fragments don't get a full stop). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your editing changes! The appear to have addressed most of the issues you raised. To tend to your further concerns I changed two headings--I believe they're fixed in a suitable way now. Say, is there a consensus on having a combination of vertical and horizontal citation templates? Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note your changing of a heading that read "Further information" to one reading "Further reading". In this particular case, none of the listings are specifically for reading; they are audio-visual media. What's the solution? Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intersting, not sure on that; do whatever makes most sense I suppose, but I always thought we used Further reading even if it's other media. I'll respect whatever you decide, since it's not necessary to sweat the little stuff :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave it as "Further reading" for consistency with other articles. So... do you support Featured status for this article? Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Now that the MoS issues have been addressed, I believe that this excellent article is ready for FA. Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This excellent article meets the FA criteria - great work. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments I've given this a copyedit and some MOS cleanup. Some remaining prose issues:

  • "African American" is presented as a hyphenated noun and as a non-hyphenated adjective just within the lead. Not only are these two uses counter-intuitive, but the construct is used inconsistently throughout.
Fixed; the hyphen has been removed in all cases. Note that there is not complete agreement between all instances of the term on Wikipedia. We see African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) and Category:History of African-American civil rights, both using a hyphen, yet the main page defining the term is without the hyphen: African American. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll forgive me a moment of geekitude, the examples you provided are in fact internally consistent: adjectival forms are hyphenated, but the proper noun is not. Those are logical, grammatical treatments of the term, whereas 'hyphenated proper nouns but non-hyphenated adjectives' was kinda backasswards :) In any case, I'm satisfied with non-hyphenated usage throughout. Maralia (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geekiness works for me; I embrace it. Taking a fresh look at the article, I sense that a number of instances might be described as adjectival: "...the quality of African-American petty officers...", "...until the African-American winch operator successfully tested", "...15 percent of all African-American naval casualties...", "...258 African-American sailors in the ordnance battalion continued to refuse to load ammunition...", "...filled with accounts from African-American enlisted men...", "...appeared from African-American publishers...", "...1,000 African-American men...", "...conflict between African-American sailors...", and "...43 African-American defendants..." Do you think these instances should be hyphenated? Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Just as with 'the sky was light blue' versus 'the light-blue sky'. Maralia (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! A handful of hyphens have been restored where appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two paragraphs of the Explosion section need some work. The section begins with past tense, diverts to past perfect, then comes back to past tense in a less-than-obvious fashion ("Division Three's 98 men were loading..."). The last sentence of the first paragraph describes the incendiary bombs in a convoluted fashion, and confusingly contains two emdashes not used in conjunction. The first sentence of the next paragraph contains an aside that is awkwardly tacked on after an emdash. I can try to help rephrase these, but didn't have any brilliant ideas yet.
Tough one! I'll work on it.
I gave that section a shot, but it's difficult to convey the change from an existing situation to a developing situation. Please, check it out and see how it works. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better flow now. Made a few minor tweaks. Maralia (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to public pressure, the United States Navy reconvened the courts-martial board in 1945 and affirmed the guilt of the convicted men." - I don't think the latter of these two events should be ascribed as 'due to public pressure'.
I'm suggesting this simple fix: "Due to public pressure, the United States Navy reconvened the courts-martial board in 1945; the court affirmed the guilt of the convicted men." Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No enlisted man stationed at Port Chicago ever received formal training in the handling and loading of explosives into ships." - this is a bit hyperbolic; can we at least say had ever received?
I'm incorporating your suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • " were taken under guard to a barge built to accommodate 75 men to be held there as a temporary military prison, or "brig"." - awkward; could use rephrasing.
I divided this bit into two sentences: "...taken under guard and ordered onto a barge. The barge, built to accommodate 75 men, was to serve as a temporary military prison, or "brig"." Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough, thus struck—but a bit weak now with "a barge. The barge". Will fix if inspiration strikes. Maralia (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing the second "The barge" into "This unlocked working vessel". Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't hate me, but I still don't like it. How about "These men were taken under guard to a barge which was used as a temporary military prison or "brig", despite having been built to accommodate only 75 men." I like that better, unless it puts undue emphasis on the latter phrase. Maralia (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good phrasing. I'm putting that in. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Veltmann pointed out that Small's brief four- or five-minute speech to the men on the barge was fulfilling the duty to maintain order that had been placed on him by his superiors." - awkward phrasing, and 'pointed out' is probably not a good choice of verb here as he was in fact arguing that this was the case.
I'm going to try this fix: "Veltmann argued that Small's brief four- or five-minute speech to the men on the barge was given in the performance of his duty to maintain order, a duty placed upon him by his superiors." Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really interesting article, and I look forward to supporting it soon. Maralia (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images checked and are okay. 8 images, most are public domain from US navy. I switched the image of marshall to one from 1957 as I'm not sure we can justify fair-use given we have from 1957. the 1936 image is clearer, maybe worth seeing if it is public domain as it is from library of congress, though it looks like Binksternet has researched this area already, Tom B (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That 1936 image of Marshall was taken by NAACP. I imagine that they, being a group of lawyers, would have retained some rights to it, but I don't know. I wanted a picture of Marshall taken before or shortly after 1944 and I thought this 1936 one looked good. The moment in his life when it was taken was when he started working with NAACP, the group that sent him to check out the mutiny trial, which was my basis for non-free fair use of an historic image. Is there another rationale that would be firmer?
The Smithsonian's copyright permission page says that fair use is permitted, with some restrictions. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of images, there's one of the trial itself which I wanted to use but was unsure whether it had been taken by a Navy photographer or by one of the many newspaper photographers present. Anybody have a clue? Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just one quibble, that doesn't detract from my willingness to support.
    • Quality: "They and their men sometimes adopted an antagonistic relationship." Perhaps "They and their men sometimes held an antagonistic relationship." or maybe "suffered from an antagonistic..."
How about "sometimes struck an antagonistic relationship"? Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works. "Adopted" was just odd, but I couldn't think of something much better. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really nice article, thanks for writing it! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:50, 16 March 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/Port_Chicago_disaster&oldid=1138469245"