Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Edward L. Ryerson/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 May 2022 [1].

SS Edward L. Ryerson edit

Nominator(s): GreatLakesShips (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Great Lakes freighter SS Edward L. Ryerson. I brought the article to GA status in March 2021. It has since been copy edited by Twofingered Typist, and has undergone a peer review. GreatLakesShips (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:Edward L. Ryerson launch.jpg, File:Edward L. Ryerson in the Manitowoc River.jpg skeptical about the non-free usage rationale. How is NFCC#8 met? Does "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."? If so, the rationale does not explain. I would suggest removing both images. (t · c) buidhe 07:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Could the picture of the launch be kept? GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to make it clear why "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." as required by NFCC. (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Removing it seems to be the only option. GreatLakesShips (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Are the other images alright? GreatLakesShips (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from North8000 edit

A sentence that is both in the lead and body says: "She is one of only two American-owned straight deck lake freighters..." relying on the internal link to say what "straight deck" means here. But as described at the linked article, "straight deck" has two very different meanings. The intended use in this article is not only merely one of the two (leaving the intended meaning in this article unclear), but the intended meaning is not what the linked article describes as the primary meaning. Could this be clarified? North8000 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the straight deck article to help in this area. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: I've added a footnote to clarify the matter. GreatLakesShips (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! North8000 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: I've added "Comments from North8000" to this section. Hope you don't mind. GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentioned that they spent an immense amount extra to equip it carry passengers in style. The few glimpses I had of sources seemed to make a point of discussing it carrying VIP's as guests. Do think this should be mentioned in the article? North8000 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not.
@North8000: Which source said that? I think I missed that detail. GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make a note of it but I see if I can find it again. It was one of the sources in the article, and the link went to a site (google books?) which had a paragraph or two from about 10 different pages. That's why I called it "glimpses". North8000 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was the google books glimpse of "Twilight of the Great Lakes Steamer" page 77. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: Thank you. Done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was going slow figuring that others would be taking more time interviewing details. But then I saw the recent notice. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed edit

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere - eg yard number
  • "Since 2009, she has been in long-term layup at the Fraser Shipyard" - text indicates that while she started there she was later moved
Changed to "Since 2009, she has been in long-term layup in Superior, Wisconsin."
  • "became well known for her elegant lines" - source?
Changed to "Enthusiasts consider Edward L. Ryerson to be one of the most aesthetically pleasing lake freighters ever built."
  • How are you ordering Sources?
Originally alphabetically based on the author/publisher, although they were changed during the peer review.
  • What makes Great Lakes Vessel History a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything official that would qualify it as a usable source. It has been removed.
@Nikkimaria: The points have been addressed.
@Nikkimaria: Are the rest of the sources alright? GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 06:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still seeing details in the infobox that don't appear to be cited anywhere, eg the capacity of 27,500 tons. Also not clear on Sources ordering - it appears that items without a named author are mostly alphabetical by title, but not entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've sorted all i could find. As for the sources, they are ordered alphabetically, regardless of whether or not an author is listed. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 16:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still more, eg displacement. Also we've now got several work titles in Sources using |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I can't see anything else that isn't cited in the infobox or the body of the article. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 21:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still seeing work titles using |publisher=. Otherwise yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: It's done. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 14:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

  • She was launched on January 21, 1960, and Frankcliffe Hall was launched before that, on December 7, 1959, so I don't understand the "Queen of the Lakes" title -- if it doesn't count till the ship is launched, then she was never the longest; if it counts from construction, then the Frankcliffe Hall would have taken over the title before December 7. What am I missing?
My mistake. I accidentally wrote 1959 instead of 1962.
I don't think so.
  • Why is it worth mentioning a cargo of mill scale? Is there something unusual about that?
It is for a ship that worked in the iron ore trade.
  • Have you looked through the newspapers.com articles that mention the ship? I had a quick look; there are hundreds of mentions. No doubt most are trivial, but I see you don't have any references to newspapers in the article so I thought I'd check.
    I don't have a newspapers account.
    It's free. If you go to WP:LIBRARY and click on "Get free access to research!" near the bottom it'll take you to a page where you can sign up. If you have problems you can ask questions or ask for help at WT:LIBRARY. It's a great resource. Since you don't have an account yet I'll do some searches today and see if I can find anything of interest, and post the results here, but I really recommend you sign up -- for the articles you write I think it would be very useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Two months ago I got a notification which said I was eligible for an account at the Wikipedia Library. Is that significant? GreatLakesShips (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They sent that note to everyone who was eligible, so yes, it means you would be given an account if you asked for one. There are requirements (minimum number of edits, etc.) and that notification just meant that you meet the requirements. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see; the article is in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: All done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some clippings. I've noted below if they are out of copyright, meaning that you can use the photos, if you want to.

  • [2] -- mentions details of the accommodations, and mentions that the hatches admit two loading chutes and improve visibility and access during unloading. This is out of copyright.
  • [3] -- more details of accommodations, info about the crew, a mishap on the first trip, and this source says the $8M was for the whole ship, not just the accommodations, which to be honest is a lot more plausible. Out of copyright.
  • [4] -- 2016 look back. In copyright. Mentions the Manitowoc County Historical Society which apparently has photos of the ship, which may be available for use.
  • [5] -- a similar article, from 2020. In copyright. This one has a picture from the Wisconsin Maritime Museum, which might be worth contacting.
  • [6] -- mentions that the launch damaged the city dock, and that there's an elevator on board -- the first on a lake ship. Out of copyright -- the Green Bay Press-Gazette did start renewing copyright, but much later than necessary for the 1960 issues.
  • [7] -- gives a couple of engineering details, e.g. about the controls for the boiler, and explains why the vertical-sided holds were important. Out of copyright.

Per this page copyright has to be renewed for publications before 1964, and this page is where you can search for those renewals.

I think that's everything useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: All done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GreatLakesShips regarding the two new photos, how did you confirm there was no copyright renewal? (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if GreatLakesShips repeated the search, but I searched, using the link above to cocatalog.loc.gov. I searched for renewals 27-28 years after the publication dates using the newspaper titles as the search string. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds reasonable. Image review is a pass. (t · c) buidhe 00:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The additions look good. Buidhe, since you did the image review, there are two new images you may want to look at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

ore than three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was sitting back figuring that that the first step was a longer process of getting details reviewed. Seeing your note I added my support. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "Ispat International N.V." Of which country?
Sorted.
  • "She was sold to the Indiana Harbor Steamship Company;" When? Ditto in the main text.
Done.
  • "in December of that same year," What year? Ditto in the main text.
Done.
  • "Edward L. Ryerson set cargo haulage records twice during the early 1960s." This is unclear. From the text below the record appears to be before the weight of cargo, but this shoudl be clarified. Also record for what? For any ship on the Great Lakes? For a ship of her class?
Not really sure what you mean by this.
  • "In August 1989, she loaded a cargo of mill scale in Detroit, Michigan." Why is this worth saying? It seems too trivial for the article.
Removed.
  • "On November 13, 1997, she was placed in the dry dock at Bay Shipbuilding Company in Sturgeon Bay for her five-year inspection." Also trivial. You could say she was inspected every five years, but why mention this specific inspection?
Removed.
  • "The ship was moved to Sturgeon Bay's east dock on December 7, 2000, and back to Bay Shipbuilding on August 17, 2004.[" Presumably laid up, but you should clarify.
Clarified.
  • You say in 'History' "Edward L. Ryerson is the third of the thirteen so-called 730-class of lake freighters built; five were American, of which she is the first." and in 'Career' "Edward L. Ryerson is one of only two American-owned straight deck lake freighters, the other one being the 1958-built freighter John Sherwin." I think it would be better to have these comments together and explain how they are related - or not.
I don't think this would add anything to the article.
  • The referencing is confusing. You have two different Boatnerd refs, divided apparently randomly depending on whether you have put Boatnerd in italics. It will also be very difficult for a reader who does not understand sfn to find the correct reference. It would be better to consistently have the first word(s) as the sfn ref e.g. "Great Lakes" rather than Boatnerd. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have converted the refs to italics, however, I don't think it is necessary to change its name.
Hi GreatLakesShips, I note that you have been off Wiki for a week, but this is a reminder that when you are back Dudley's comments above are awaiting a response. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'll start working on them tomorrow. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 21:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Sorry it took so long, but your comments have now been addressed. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 11:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to oppose this nomination as I have made two criticisms which appear to me valid and important and have not been addressed.
One is that the ship is described as record breaking without explaining which record. It is like describing someone as a record breaking weightlifter without explaining which weight and whether the record is for USA, world or a local club.
The other criticism is the confusing referencing. The references appear to refer to random words in the source, which makes it unnecessarily difficult for readers to find the correct source. I cited the example of Boatnerd. The reader has to search through each source to find the one which mentions Boatnerd. Even worse is Telescope. There are three Telescope sources, one of which appears to be unused. The reader not only has to search all the sources for Telescope ones, they then have to make sure that they have the one with the correct date. The reference should be the first word(s) in the source to make it easy for reader to find the correct one. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting here as I am one of the supporters above. I interpreted "record-breaking" in the lead as referring to the length, which is discussed in the body in the comments about the "Queen of the Lakes" title. For the sources, I agree that there appears to be an unused Telescope source that needs to be fixed -- the one that starts "Great Lake & Seaway News". The other three seem OK to me -- two are referenced as "Burdick (1997)" and "Burdick (1999)", and the third one as "Telescope (1995)", presumably because there's no named author. For Boatnerd, I can't see the issue -- I did a search for "Boatnerd" in the article and the edit window and I'm not seeing anything out of sync. What problem are you seeing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it that you did Ctrl-F on Boatnerd to find the correct source, which is what I did. My point is that some readers who are less computer expert will not know or think to do that. I do not remember seeing another article which requires you to search to find the correct source and I think that an FA article should make it easier. If the Boatnerd reference was shown as the first words in the source, "Great Lakes Fleet Page" the reader could immediately see the correct one without needing to search. My comment on record breaking was about the haulage record, not the length, as discussed below. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did Ctrl-F when trying to figure out what the problem was, but normally I would just click on the link in the citations and it would take me to the right source, which is what happened. Still, I can see that it would be helpful to readers who don't realize the links work that way if the string used in the sfn were the same as the string used to sort the citations alphabetically. If the sfn were changed to "Great Lakes Fleet Page Vessel Feature" would that resolve the issue for Boatnerd? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly what I said and suggested in my original comment - for all references. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I finally caught up with you. I agree it would be helpful to do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    GreatLakesShips, I see you've edited once or twice in the last couple of days; did you see this oppose? Per the conversation here and below I think the issues are addressable, but I recommend you post a note saying you're planning to do so so that the coordinators are aware. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I think I can have it done by today. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 09:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I have replaced "Boatnerd" with the name of the article's author. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 23:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Dudley, who is the one who has opposed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine but the same needs to be done for other sources which are difficult for readers to find, Small Business Administration, Telescope etc. Once they are dealt with I will be happy to support. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: I have replaced "Telescope" with "Great Lakes Maritime Institute". There isn't much I can do about Small Business Administration, but it is written under the title in google books. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 22:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked and saw "record breaking" in two contexts:
  • Breaking specific cargo hauling records, and the article was specific and detailed on what those were
  • as an adjective in "record breaking length" as a reason for the "queen of the lakes" title and the article covers the specifics there
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is specific about the higher weight which broke the record, not on other aspects. Was it a record compared with all vessels or a specific type of vessel? Was it a record for the Great Lakes or some other larger or smaller area? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source had a bit more which I put in; that they were tonnage records for hauling iron ore cargo. There was no ship type qualifier (i.e. only for a certain type of ship) for the record noted in the source. Regarding location qualifiers on the record, the noted route did go through three of the great lakes so it wouldn't be for just one lake. But there were no geographic descriptors for the record criteria in the source.North8000 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the implication is that it was for any ship in the Great Lakes. Would you be happy to say that? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're safe there if you are OK with it. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I have been busy, but I think they can be addressed by tomorrow. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 20:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again GreatLakes. If you have finished your responses to Dudley's comments, could you ping them; if you haven't, could you? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I already have. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several refs are still unnecessarily difficult for the reader to trace and the problem can be easily solved with "|ref={{sfnref|", which the nominator does use. I have withdrawn my oppose and I will leave it to other reviewers to decide whether to support. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Morgan695 edit

  • Built between April 1959, and January 1960 for the Inland Steel Company, Is the first comma necessary?
Removed.
  • Since 2009, she has been in long-term layup in Superior, Wisconsin "Layup" is a technical term that myself and I imagine most general readers are unfamiliar with, so is there a way to either rephrase this or gloss the meaning of the term?
I think the linked article is satisfactory.
Removed.
  • In note A, I would delink straight deck and put the term in quotes per MOS:WORDSASWORDS
Done.
  • In the second paragraph of "Design and construction", it seems like you're switching between active and passive voice, e.g. Edward L. Ryerson is the third of the thirteen and Edward L. Ryerson's four unique vertical-sided cargo holds were loaded. Is there a reason for this?
I have no explanation for the first one (other than possibly absent mindedness), which I have now changed. As for your second example, I assume I did this because the ship has not been in service for over a decade.
  • While underway, she broke a stud of her stuffing box Again, two technical terms that I think would benefit from further explanation.
Again, I thin the links suffice.
  • the Netherlands based I think you need a hyphen between "Netherlands" and "based"
Done.
  • Check to make sure refs are ordered sequentially in the body of the article when there are multiple references in sequence; I see one non-sequential in the last graf of "Design and construction" and the last graf of "Career".
Done.

These are my only comments. While not necessary, comments on my fellow straggler FAC would also be appreciated. Morgan695 (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgan695: I have addressed your comments. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 19:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I think the article would benefit from further explanation of a few instances of technical terms, it otherwise meets FAC requirements in my view, so I support based on prose. Morgan695 (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2022 (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/SS_Edward_L._Ryerson/archive1&oldid=1088431766"