Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Dakotan

Add links
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 by User:SandyGeorgia 02:15, 17 December 2008 [1].

SS Dakotan[edit]

Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

This is an article about an American cargo ship launched in 1912 that had a nearly 60-year career for the United States and the Soviet Union. The article has passed a GA review and a Military History A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Zyrianin should be a redirect, as should Dakotan, if it weren't ambiguous. The latter shouldn't be a redlink in any case--that should probably be a disambiguation page, including a reference for the demonym for people and things from North or South Dakota or the old Dakota Territory or the Dakota tribe, but including a link to SS Dakotan. Furthermore, I didn't see any "SS" in front of Zyrianin in the article; should there be one?
The omission of SS in front of Zyrianin in the first paragraph of the lead was an oversight and has now been remedied. (It was displayed correctly as "SS Zyrianin" in later in the lead and in the infobox.) I'm thinking that the same reasoning you had for Dakotan would also apply to Zyrianin so I'll work on disambiguation pages for both. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What appears in the Soviet Union category now is "SS Dakotan". You should categorize the redirect at SS Zyrianin, sorted under Z, for that and any other Soviet Union categories, so that people who go to the category can see the name appropriate to that category. Any category listing that comes from a redirect will appear italicized in the category listing. It should still be categorized and sorted under Dakotan as well, so that people can go from this article to the Soviet ships category. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issues I raised here have been addressed. Thanks. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Images check out ok. --Moni3 (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • The first paragraph of the lead is slightly disappointing. I would like to see more general information about the ship to start off the article, rather than a timeline of a sorts.
    • The reasoning behind that is to try to have all of the alternative names (i.e. redirected names) in boldface in the first paragraph of the lead (difficult given that there are several). I always strive for that after a previous FAC of mine where that was brought up. How would you recommend improving the paragraph? — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The committee selected Dakotan, her sister ship Montanan, and twelve other American-flagged ships that were sufficiently fast, could carry enough fuel in their bunkers for transatlantic crossings, and, most importantly, were in port or not far at sea. - "Twelve" → "12". Same with all numbers above 10.
    • I went ahead and changed "twelve" → "12" where you noted. (I had written it as "twelve" because two sentences later I used "four", "fourteen", and "ten" (all spelled out) and was trying to avoid a mix of words and numerals.) Are there others that you saw? — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no reason twelve must be rendered as "12". Please review the number guidelines. Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good otherwise. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - MoS gives flexibility in numbers vs words. See Numbers as figures or words. Bellhalla is compatible with MoS in his justification for his choice of spelling out the numbers. I prefer the choice of consistency over using a mixture of numbers as words and numbers as numbers in appropriate situations. Also, in some situations, spelling out numbers is aesthetically more pleasing. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential support - Another one of your well written, well organized and strangely fascinating articles. One question on the sentence: " Dakotan continued inter-coastal service through the Panama Canal in a relatively uneventful career." Do you mean her career of inter-coastal service through the Panama Canal was relatively uneventful? (Sorry to be dense about this, but "career" seems to subsume the whole of her career, including whatever happened with the Soviets, unless the word has a different meaning for ships.)
    • I meant just the inter-coastal period of the ship's career. I changed the sentence to "Dakotan continued inter-coastal service through the Panama Canal in a relatively uneventful manner over the next twenty years." — Bellhalla (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wish the first para could be more straight forward and easier to figure out. I understand the need for so much bolding. Is it possible that the opening sentence could be more of a summary statement? Something like:

SS Dakotan was a cargo ship built in 1912 for the American-Hawaiian Steamship Company that served as a transport ship under the United States Army in World War I, and then transferred to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease in World War II before being finally scrapped in 1969. During World War I, she was taken over by the United States Army as USAT Dakotan. Near the end of that war she was transferred to the United States Navy and commissioned as USS Dakotan (ID-3882). During World War II, the ship was transferred to the Soviet Union and renamed SS Zyrianin (or Зырянин in Cyrillic).

The first para is so dense with info that it does not invite the reader into the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion for the wording. I've replaced the original version with yours. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but with three minor concerns:

  • I don't see the particular relevance of the sugar refinery picture. Given the size of the infobox and the image sandwiching it will cause, a photograph of the processing of a commodity which the vessel carried is unnecessary.
    • I included it because it shows a part of the industry which was the reason for the ship's construction.
      • On a narrow screen, this is the only place where text is sandwiched. I think it is far afield, as we likely would not show an oil rig for a tanker, or a sawmill for a timber barge, etc. Kablammo (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can see your point about the content of the photo and have so removed it. But, I've always interpreted the "sandwiching" guideline to be between two images, not counting an infobox as an image. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a wide-aspect screen there is a substantial blank space in due to the picture below the infobox. Not sure if this can be remedied, given the limited space available for images.
    • Which image is causing problems, the "SS Zyrianin …" image? (And, if so, how wide is your screen?)
      • Yes. Wide. But on my laptop there is no problem with white space. Assuming most computers have narrower screens it should not be an issue (I posted my first set of comments while looking at the desktop). Kablammo (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is stated that her "movements throughout the rest of the war are not known". Presumably they are known to someone; I don't think the absence of such details renders the article not comprehensive, but see no reason for the statement.
    • I would tend to agree, but in past GA nominations, peer reviews, A-Class reviews, etc. for this and other articles, I invariably get the 'what happened from this year to that year' questions. What would you think a better way of conveying that the ship did something but it's not in sources, and wasn't, say, just overlooked?
      • Personally I think just noting it was in service with the USSR should be sufficient, and I would disagree with those who want a chronology of events even if mundane. Kablammo (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I reworded the sentence to keep the fact that she was in SFO during the war but omitted the rest of that sentence. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kablammo (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Replies interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all concerns have been rectified. (I assume the "white space" problem has been rectified, as I do not detect significant problems on different sized screens.) —Mattisse (Talk) 22:16, 16 December 2008 (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_Dakotan&oldid=1048938216"