Talk:Caldew (trawler)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 03:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox seems a touch excessive. It's longer than the article. Is there a way to combine some of these? I've never seen an article with an infobox longer than the prose before, and I think there's a reason why ...
How is the length figure measured? Overall, at the waterline, at the perpendiculars?
Seems like the fact that it was armed should be mentioned in the prose body. Presumably this was during its military service, right?
The collision seems significant. Add it to the lead.

All these points have been addressed. As for the length, nothing is given by any source what what specifically was used to measure it. Lettler^hello 14:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now the tricky part. I'm not comfortable with some of these references.

Tees Built Ships has on its homepage It is based on detailed research by a number of enthusiasts, and is being developed with the support of a team of volunteer data editors and contributors of photographs. - "volunteer data editors" sounds a touch user-generated to me.
Milford Trawlers looks self-published by Barry Johnson. Does Johnson have the qualifications to make it past WP:SPS?
The Bosun's Watch is used very heavily, and it looks very self-published. It's on Wordpress, and the author section doesn't give a signal of this guy having substantial qualifications to meet WP:SPS. I'm just not comfortable with the amount of sourcing to self-published sources in this article. This looks like a really neat and useful site, but I'm not sure its WP:RS.

To address your points on these websites:

Tees Built Ships may not be WP:RS, so I have replaced it with a source from the Bosun's Watch.
Milford Trawlers seems to have been compiled by Barry Johnson from "an archive of material relating to the history of the port of Milford" created by another man. See the home page for this information. I'd call RS on this.
The Bosun's Watch looks to have been created by the Fleetwood Maritime Heritage Trust, which is aimed at "providing Fleetwood with an accurate and exhaustive portrayal of [the town's] maritime history" and "has been conducting exhaustive research into many aspects of Fleetwood's maritime past". See the about section for this info. Again, I'd call RS on this source as well. Lettler^hello 14:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lettler: - Are you okay if I ping in a couple experts? The sources in question are used heavily, so I want to make sure they're good before passing this. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Hog Farm: Sure. Lettler^hello 15:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Parsecboy and Sturmvogel 66: - I know this is a little bit out of the realm of the ships articles I've reviewed of yours, but what do you think of the debated sources mentioned here? I'd like to be very confident they're reliable before passing, since I'm fairly picky with sourcing. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I generally agree with you, Hog Farm. The author page on Bosun's Watch doesn't seem to indicate that Mr. Porter is an established expert as required by WP:SPS (in a nutshell, Lettler, Porter would have to be an author who has published works from reliable publishers - an example of this is combinedfleet.com, which is the work of many people, but the primary editors are John Parshall and Anthony Tully, both of whom have written a number of very well-received works on the Japanese Imperial Navy).
      - The same applies to Barry Johnson of Milford Trawlers; that he based his site on archival material isn't really relevant. There have been discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard along similar lines that I've been involved with over the years, and the consensus is always that the source material is not as important as the qualifications of the site creator. In short, we need evidence that Johnson is a published expert in the field.

There's a pretty good chance we disagree on the reliability of the sources. I can ping in a few editors I've worked with who have quite a bit of experience with ship GAs and FAs. As it stands, I'm not liking the sourcing in this one. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call the Tees-Built ships website RS because it was taken over by the Shipping & Shipbuilding Research Trust [1] a few years ago. One of the founding Trustees is Ian Buxton, who is well published, especially on shipbuilding. Sadly, none of the other questionable websites appear to fall under the SSRT's aegis and cannot be considered RS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lettler: - Nothing's been going on with this for awhile, and since the majority of the sourcing is to unreliable sites, I'm gonna have to fail this one. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fine. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]