Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Iowa turret explosion

< 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 User:SandyGeorgia 04:27, 6 January 2009 [1].

USS Iowa turret explosion edit

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk)

I believe that this article about a tragic accident aboard a United States Navy battleship is ready for consideration for FA. The article passed an A-class review with WP:MILHIST. Self-nomination but several other editors provided significant and much appreciated help including Allanon (a.k.a. the_ed17), Joe N, Otto4711, Cool Hand Luke, Dual Freq, MBK004, and TomStar81. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support; I commented during the A-class review, and I believe that the article fulfills every requirement to become a featured article. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a great article and meets all the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I'm not keen on the link to "doctorate" near the name of Dr. Richard Schwoebel. The foreword to his book on this subject describes him as a physicist with "technical expertise in studies of surface physics, material properties and safety issues". Would this be better than a link to doctorate? Still looking at the article.
  • I'm also not keen on left-aligned images at the bottom of a section. They jam the section headings over to the right; sometimes in a distracting manner. Still looking. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thompson, p. 358 calls him "Dr. Richard Schwoebel." It could be that Schwoebel is being self-effacing in his book, but I don't think it's a big deal. I removed the references to "Dr" and moved the image in question over to the right [2]. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 118 (IMDB..) needs a publisher and last access date outside the link title.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I formatted the two references in question [3]. Cla68 (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Is it possible to re-arrange the images so that Master Chief Stephen Skelley (center, facing camera) is not looking off the page, per WP:MOS#Images? (I realize it's not always possible to comply.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved Skelley's image to the right and checked the DAB [4]. I believe Matisse corrected the one outstanding DAB [5]. Cla68 (talk) 08:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support I think this article is well done and meets FA criteria. However, it could be improved if some information were included about Moosally's retirement comments about the investigation. There are articles in both Washington Post and Boston Globe linked here [6]. NancyHeise talk 20:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I searched under "Moosally" in the Post's website and nothing came up. The Globe requires a member ship fee to view the article. What further information about Moosally's comments do feel is needed? Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I just clicked on the link I provided you and it did not go where I intended it to go. [7] this link has the names and dates of the Post and Globe articles that covered that notable event. I think Moosally's comments could be summed up in a single sentence. I also found this [8] book that could also be used as a source for his comments. I hope that helps. NancyHeise talk 05:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles are still behind pay-per-view sites. Could you be more specific on what you think the article should say about Moosally's comments? I may be able to answer your concern with the sources I have if I ensure that I understand what is you're looking for. Cla68 (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cla68, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. This book [9] is fully available for use as a source of Moosally's comments. I think a sentence could be added to let Reader know Moosally's feelings about the investigation since he was intimately involved with the entire affair. I think that adding a quote would be fine too. Just let Reader know that at his retirement he felt this way about the investigation. NancyHeise talk 00:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Striking "Conditional" I see that Moosally's retirement quote is included now in Aftermath. Looks great! NancyHeise talk 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Although a bit on the long side, the information present here is extremely well backed-up. Definitely FA-Quality, well done! Cam (Chat) 23:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support so far. I haven't read all of it, and probably won't, but I've seen only good things. Thanks, Cla68 - it's interesting, and I wasn't aware of the incident until now.
A suggestion: On plutonium I saw content footnotes (as opposed to citation sources) listed in a separate section and demarcated by <ref group=note>foo</ref>. It may be more trouble than it's worth to change it, but you should be aware of the option. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've considered using a separate footnotes section but haven't decided yet on it. I might try it out on the next article I work on. Cla68 (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now on criterion 3
  • File:16in Gun Turret.jpg - We need to know where this diagram was originally published to know whether or not it is a Navy publication and therefore in the PD. Please add the original publication information.
  • Removed. Replacement image is fine. Awadewit (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still cannot access the link for this image. I receive the message "An unexpected application error has occurred and has been logged." Awadewit (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. finally, I can access this page. Awadewit (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to link to the image description page, that has the information about the photo on it? Note that at WP:IUP, it suggests linking to the HTML page that contains the image, not the image itself. Awadewit (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking, since there is no way to link directly. Awadewit (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, can we link to the image description page? Awadewit (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking, since there is no way to link directly. Awadewit (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, can we link to the image description page? Awadewit (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking, since there is no way to link directly. Awadewit (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each article must have a separate fair use rationale that meets WP:NFCC (NFCC #10). Right now, I don't think that this image meets those criteria, specifically #8. I don't think that having this image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". If you believe the opposite to be the case, the fair use rationale has to make that case for this particular article. Awadewit (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose for including this fair use image says that "Clayton Hartwig is central to the controversy described in the article "USS Iowa turret explosion," therefore it is believed that a image of Hartwig is of educational benefit to readers." Could you please explain in the fair use rationale how Hartwig was central to the controversy? (After I read the lead of the article, I understood how he was central, but as a legal justification for the image this fair use rationale is extremely vague. It needs to be much more specific.) Awadewit (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:16inchload.jpg - Why do you believe that Charles Thompson II wrote this book as part of his naval duties? Currently the source information contradicts the author information a bit.
  • File:IowaVictimsDover1.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
  • I believe we should list the date when this was last accessed. Awadewit (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Moosally and Bush.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
  • I believe we should list the date when this was last accessed. Awadewit (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Richard Milligan.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
  • I believe we should list the date when this was last accessed. Awadewit (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:IowaBlackenedTurret.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
  • I believe we should list the date when this was last accessed. Awadewit (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Milligan and Edney.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
  • I believe we should list the date when this was last accessed. Awadewit (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe we should list the date when this was last accessed. Awadewit (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:KelsoIowaBrief.JPEG - The source link is broken for this image, so we cannot verify the license. Please fix the link.
  • Must have been a random thing - works for me today. Awadewit (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will strike this objection once these issues have been resolved and I look forward to doing so soon. Awadewit (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not exchange the image of the gun turret with File:Iowa 16 inch Gun-EN.svg? JonCatalán(Talk) 06:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link is still working for me. Cla68 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clayton Hartwig is a key figure in the controversy surrounding the Navy's investigation into the explosion. Thus, I felt it of educational benefit [16] to include an image of him in the article. If you don't agree then I may need to reevaluate that. Cla68 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added more rationale for why the image is included in the article [17]. Cla68 (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, there is no way to directly link to the information page for the DefenseLink Multimedia images. The way they are presented is from a search results page that does not contain a unique location html. The only way to find them is to conduct a search under the image name, number, or subject. For the "disappeared" images I added access dates [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. Cla68 (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All image issues have been resolved. I have struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • File:Iowa 16 inch Gun-EN.svg is based off File:16in Gun Turret.jpg (same website as source), and thus suffers the same source issues as the scan from the book, featured picture or not.
  • File:Clayton Hartwig and Fred Moosally.jpg — I believe Awadewit is asking for the rationale to include this non-free picture. What purpose is it serving in the article, other than "here's a picture of Moosally and Hartwig together". Does it add to the significance of the article? Is it illustrating or conveying something that cannot be completely (accurately) expressed in words? If that is the case, then the rationale should be stated on the image page (the {{Non-free use rationale}} template has a "Purpose of use" field for this).
  • Personally, I think there is an overload of images in this article. In resolutions wider than 1024, the sequence of images that depicts the loading and firing of Iowa's guns is displaced one thumbnail image width to the left, creating an unsightly whitespace on the right. Are four pictures necessary for this? In terms of purpose, is File:IowaTurretExplosion1.jpg not similar to File:USS Iowa BB61 Iowa Explosion 1989.jpg? Jappalang (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source problem for the self-made diagram of the turret is different than if we wanted to use the original diagram itself. If we wanted to use the original diagram, it would have to be in the PD. If we want to use the diagram as a source, we only have to establish that it is a reliable source, not that it is in the PD. I agree that the source is hard to pin down and looks a bit sketchy. How reliable is this website? Awadewit (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - assuming that the image problems are worked out. IMHO, this is an excellent article, and I am proud to be mentioned at the top of this page even though I really didn't do much. Good luck, and (as I said in the A-class review) very good work Cla. On a side note, sorry for never getting to that references check that I said I was going to do during the A-class review... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Ed, assuming image issues are resolved. I read most of this during ACR but didn't get round to commenting/supporting, so pleased to do so now. An amazing amount of work has gone into this, and it succeeds in covering the nuances of a very tangled web. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I read roughly half of the article (I'll hopefully review the rest eventually) and the prose is generally excellent. This is a very comprehensive, engaging, and well-written article. I have one comment, however. The Background contains a block of images that should alternate alignments per WP:ACCESS. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kept those images together because the sequence illustrates steps in quick succession in a process, much like these two images that are together in this article to illustrate two steps in a single event at the bottom of this section. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - a little long, but very thorough and focused yet. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written, well researched, well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:04, 6 January 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/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion&oldid=1088204270"