Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronald Niel Stuart
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 20:57, 17 July 2007.
Nom restarted (old nom) Raul654 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The article is comprehensive and informative, and Jackyd101's latest edits have brought the prose to a higher standard. Karanacs 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. The article does not meet the "compelling prose" criteria. There are numerous misspellings and comma-placement errors, and many cases where sentences are long and convoluted. Overall, the article is comprehensive and informative, but it needs polishing before it is ready to be an FA.[reply]Per WP:MOSBIO, subsequent references to the subject of the article should use his surname, not his first name. (See second paragraph early life) He should also not be referred to as Lt Stuart.
- Done
Is it necessary to include so much information about his parents?
- Reduced
- I would wikilink barque, First World War, victoria Cross, semaphoring, sloop
- Done, although First World War and Victoria Cross were already Wikilinked, did you want them done twice?
- I know they are linked in the lead, but I think they should also be linked the first time they are used in the body of the article. Karanacs 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, although First World War and Victoria Cross were already Wikilinked, did you want them done twice?
the Pre-War merchant career paragraph does not read well.
- Reworded
- red links should be removed
- I want to question this one a little. Whilst I am happy to remove them, doesn't this defeat the purpose of a red link. Whereever I could during the creation of this article I created stubs for any redlinks I could find. The four remaining are all first world war detroyers for which I could not find information with which to create even a stub. Nonetheless, they should be linked so that when the articles are created they will link to the right place (otherwise how will the creator of the new article know to link them here?) I will remove them if necessary, but I think its a shame to do so just because the stub required does not exist.
- I think they should be removed, but I won't make this the deciding factor in my vote. Karanacs 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All red links delinked.--Jackyd101 21:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they should be removed, but I won't make this the deciding factor in my vote. Karanacs 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to question this one a little. Whilst I am happy to remove them, doesn't this defeat the purpose of a red link. Whereever I could during the creation of this article I created stubs for any redlinks I could find. The four remaining are all first world war detroyers for which I could not find information with which to create even a stub. Nonetheless, they should be linked so that when the articles are created they will link to the right place (otherwise how will the creator of the new article know to link them here?) I will remove them if necessary, but I think its a shame to do so just because the stub required does not exist.
I've fixed a few misspellings in the article but there are others that need to be corrected. You should also read through the article carefully for comma usage. I saw multiple instances of missing commas and multiple instances of excessive comma usage.
- copyedited for commas and spellings.
There should be a comma after a single year (In 1914,) This is correct in some locations but is not consistent.
- Done (I think)
Watch for POV. "he was fotunate"
- removed
Need a citation immediately after a direct quote. there is not one for "on the top of the line"
- Done
last line of third paragraph in First World War section does not read well.
- Rephrased
the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of WWI section deal with the HMS Farnborough, so it would make more sense for them to be included in that subsection.
- Moved
"the first year of Q-ship service was frustrating for Stuart and the crew" implies that it was also the crew's first year.
- Rephrased
After the first reference to someone else, they should be referred to only by their surname (unless they share the subject's surname). Therefore, you should use "Campbell" instead of "Captain Campbell"
- Done
"took the decision" doesn't make much sense to me
- Rephrased
"month-date combinations should be wikilinked (17 February to allow people's date preferences to work correctly. You should also not use the article "the" in front of the date.
- Done (I think)
"the submarine, U-83" should either by "a submarie, U-83" or "the submarine u-83"
- Rephrased
"Unlike the previous encounter, the damage done was immense." is not good prose. "Unlike the experience of the Famborough, the ship suffered much damage" would be better.
- Rephrased
I've never heard the phrase "was holed" before
- Its a maritime expression for a ship hit by a torpedo or impaled on a rock, literally because a large hole is torn in the hull. I've seen it used in many naval texts. I'll remove it though if you still want me too.
- I'll take your word for it.Karanacs 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a maritime expression for a ship hit by a torpedo or impaled on a rock, literally because a large hole is torn in the hull. I've seen it used in many naval texts. I'll remove it though if you still want me too.
Need a citation for the fact that "One petty officer was killed and a number wounded."
- Done
"is it "guns crews" or "gun crews"?
- Corrected
You mention twice in two sentences that the U-boat got within 50 yds of the Pargoust
- removed 2nd one
- Need to have the metric conversion for each measurement.
- Now all done (I think)--Jackyd101 21:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence about Rosenow and his men being killed is very long. This should either be rewritten or broken into 2 sentences
- Rephrased
The word "however" is used liberally in the article. Can you cut down on the number of appearances it makes?
- Reduced
Need a citation for the date that he was presented his VC by King George V.
- Done
"In the same year he met and married his wife Evelyn in Toxteth, with whom he would have three sons and two daughters" If you are going to use with whom, it needs to be right after the name of the person -- he didn't have 5 kids with Toxteth!
- rephrased
Check the article for POV changes in mid-sentence.
- Done (I think)
I recommend having a citation directly after this sentence "one of the most significant and important posts in merchant shipping worldwide." It may be covered by a later citation, but this is a sentence that could be contested and thus should be directly cited.
- Removed as explaining it would veer too far off topic and there is no direct citation.
Instead of using the term "currently," say "as of XXXX," because the statement may not be true in 6 months or 2 years.
- Done
Karanacs 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for a very detailed and useful critique of the article, it is very much appreciated. I have been working over the last few days to address the above, and now only have the metric conversions to do. Will get to those soon and will let you know when they are done. Thankyou, --Jackyd101 12:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent job on the changes. It reads much better now. I made a few very minor edits when I was reading through it again. I saw that you've already done some of the conversions (if you haven't already found it, {{convert}} works wonderfully well. Good luck! Karanacs 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have completed all outstanding issues from above (actually, did so a while ago but forgot to note it here).--Jackyd101 21:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent job on the changes. It reads much better now. I made a few very minor edits when I was reading through it again. I saw that you've already done some of the conversions (if you haven't already found it, {{convert}} works wonderfully well. Good luck! Karanacs 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for a very detailed and useful critique of the article, it is very much appreciated. I have been working over the last few days to address the above, and now only have the metric conversions to do. Will get to those soon and will let you know when they are done. Thankyou, --Jackyd101 12:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't have any major issues. "Twice during the night the tow broke and twice it was reconnected and the battle to save the ship continued" is a little clumsy, and the quote from the London Gazette is repetitive of the article text. DrKiernan 10:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.