User:Buggie111/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Abdul Qadir refs[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?id=sYu49zDglKIC&pg=PA562&lpg=PA562&dq=abd+el+kader+battleship&source=bl&ots=fQfAYehX_4&sig=vSB7NMMQzonJ0sC_Phnr-DWzzsw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=r3uhUMS9EMmZ2QW9mIDgDg&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Caldera[edit]

https://www.google.com/search?q=blanco+encalada&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=blanco+encalada+fragata&tbm=bks


Review[edit]

Repository of reviews where articles I have written have not gone through. I will use this page to check and see if all comments have been properly addressed. Names are hidden in case someone gets the notion that this is an attack page, which it's not.

Texans Pro Bowlers
  • However, I wonder if the decision to use 9 separate lists by year is the best choice? Wouldn't a single sortable list where the the year was the first field allow more functionality? See if any other commentators feel the same before any major revisions, as it may just be me who thinks that way. (Done)
  • All of the column headings would benefit from scope="col" per WP:DTAB. If you do decide to go with a single list, then the year would be a reasonable choice for a row header (scope="row"), unless you preferred player name (but I see that e.g. Andre Johnson features several times, making that less useful as a row header). (Done)
  • Have you got any more pictures? Not essential, but they do brighten up articles, so I'd encourage you to look for a few more if possible. All images must have alt text. (Done)


Strong oppose – I'm sorry to do this, but I must disagree with the reviewer above, whom I respect very much. I don't find the lead to be that great (Needs Doing), and the referencing leaves something to be desired there. (Done) If only that was the extent of it...

  • Bold links are discouraged by the MoS. This covers the Pro Bowl and Houston Texans links.(Done)
  • "The NFL's all-star game has a tattered image." I have a pair of major concerns with this sentence. First, "tattered image" is directly from the source as indicated by the quote "the tattered image of the NFL's all-star contest." This verges on a close paraphrasing issue. Second, this is a POVish statement that cries out for proper attribution. (Done)
  • More close paraphrasing: "It is the only major all-star game that draws lower ratings than its regular-season games" versus "it's the only major all-star game that draws lower ratings than regular-season matchups." With examples like these, why should I trust that the rest of the text doesn't have similar problems? (Done)
  • "However, the biggest concern of players is to avoid injuries to the star players." Redundant and doesn't make any sense. Players want to avoid injuries to players? Also, the phrase "biggest concern" appears in the source; while not the end of the world, it adds to my other concerns above. (Done)
  • Nothing is sourcing the third and fourth paragraphs. There are several items that could really use cites, none more so than "Being a Pro Bowler is considered to be a mark of honor, and players who are accepted into the Pro Bowl are considered to be elite." Says who? (Done)
  • The start of the fifth paragraph looks like it was taken directly from the team's article, with no adjustments made to reflect the prior lead text. AFC and NFL links are repeated, as are the abbreviations following them. (Done)
  • A cite for the 2011 division title wouldn't hurt, since I don't see where that's backed up. (Done)
  • In the last sentence, all of the references should be after punctuation, not before. (Done)
  • Check images to make sure that they have alt text. I notice the lead image doesn't. (Done)
  • List: The title of this section isn't descriptive at all. How about Pro Bowl selections or similar? (Done)
  • Don't think "Starter", "Reserve", or "Alternate" need capitalization in the intro. (Done)
  • Intro could use a period at the end. (Done)
  • Some more over-capitalization in the tables. Some positions are listed with too much capitalization, and the last two words of the "Regular Season Stats" heading shouldn't be capitalized. None of these things are proper nouns or titles, which should be capitalized. (Done)
  • If it was up to me, I'd make this a one-table list, keeping in mind that the size would be more manageable that way over the long term. However, the issues above are more important for now. (Done)
  • Can you please check all the publishers listed as Pro-Footbal-Reference.com? This simply shouldn't be present at FLC. (Done)
  • On a second look, the third and fourth paragraphs are directly taken from our Pro Bowl article. This blatant copying of another article is simply unacceptable for a featured piece of content. I can understand borrowing style/structural elements from other similar lists in certain cases, but ripping off writing from the main article is a terrible way of doing things. That and the close paraphrasing issues should be enough for this list to be quick-failed. (Done)
Battle of Caldera Bay

Battle of Caldera Bay[edit]

Battle of Caldera Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is as in depth and detailed as you can get on nine minutes of gunfire and explosions. Everything flows well, everything is cited well, two good pictures... to sum things up, I see no way this can't pass FAC, despite it's size.

  • Comments - The article is well written, though some small grammar issues need attending. Regarding the content, I'm a bit concerned on its size. Have you really researched the topic? You seem to rely heavily on very few references. Also, some of your sources are poorly formatted (#2). Lastly, your book cited notes should be able to link to the bibliography on the bottom.
    I haven't gotten into combing page 5-10 of Google Books, but I've found very few reliable sources on the topic. Searching in books gives many somewhat relevant books with "Limited PReview", books that give a sentence on the battle, and books about volcanoes. Will get to the refs soon.
    I'm sorry, but I don't see what's wrong with the NYT page. Also, what do you mean by "link to the biblio on the bottom"?
  • Two instances of confusing it's/its in one brief thread (one nom + three posts); one contributor actually transgressed while speaking of a need for grammar checks. FAC and grammar need to be re-wedded somehow. That is all.
Making a small grammar error while typing this at 4am does not disqualify me from differentiating what are professional prose, so yeah. As for Buggie, the source dates and accessdates don't follow the same pattern. Also, it would be beneficial to link the work in the reference. As for the bibliography linking, they are working now (for some reason they weren't last night). I will later take a more in depth look on the topic in order to possibly give a more precise opinion on the article.
  • never said it disqualifies you; only said "be careful, please."
  • Your geocoordinates seem to point to a location significantly inland from the bay.
  • It now links to the town.

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries.

  • "Messrs. Laird Brothers": I don't follow. Misters Laird Brothers? The link doesn't mention that name.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.)
  • Oppose on prose quality. Quite a few problems of formatting (ship names are italicised, for example). Date formats aren't consistent. It's also rather short and relies on a small number of sources.
    • I cleaned up the obvious issues. It still seems a little thin on sourcing and depth for a FA.
      • The problem is that there aren't that many sources that cover this, although if anybody knows a good SA Naval Book I'll beglad to look at it.
        • I no longer oppose this; it's well-written and well-sourced. I would like to see more sources for it, but if that truly isn't possible then maybe this should pass. I truly don't know right now. I'd welcome the opinion of more experts.

Image review

  • File:Civil_war_Chile-Almiranre_Lynch.jpg: archive filename returns 404 - double-check?
  • File:BlancoEncalada_02.jpg needs US PD tag.
The lead pic can't be verified because it seems the entire archive is down. I got a 503 error on my comp. Will do the second pic.
Both done.

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.
This very large amount of money I will hand to you makes it a high quality reliable source. Urp, I don't know. I'll get to work finding a replacement.
You have the winning Powerball ticket?
Yes, and a duplicate on which is currently being gold-plated. How does this look?
Better, but nothing modern? It'd be better to have something published within the last 50 years .. instead of within the last 120...
I've found replacement refs, and this time, they actually improve the quality of something!
Removed
  • Comments – you really should find a copy of volume one of Latin America's Wars by Robert Scheina, which I suspect would have somewhat significant coverage. His other work, Latin America: A Naval History, 1810–1987, gives about four sentences, but it cites William Clowes, Four Modern Naval Campaigns (London: Unit Library, 1902), which is available online here. Also, the battle description is wrong. They approached from the same direction, but while Condell turned around and went up the starboard side, Lynch went around Condell's stern and went up the port side, in between Condell and Biobio.
    I'll start a'lookin for it.

Comments

  • The lead should have at least a sentence noting the impact of this incident on torpedo development.
  • The citation needed tag on the article needs to be fixed.
  • Have you consulted the above book suggested by The ed17? Also you should modify the description of the torpedo boats per his suggestion, as currently worded it's somewhat confusing.

Would be happy to support after my comments are addressed.

Comments

  • Are any links available for "Balmacedist" or "Congressional" in the lede?
  • The first phrase of the background isn't great. "In 1891, after a series of struggles about multinational nitrate interests..." Multinational is linked to multinational corporation, and nitrate is linked to nitrate, which is a chemistry article more than anything. So neither the phrase itself, nor the links, really give the lay reader access to information about the source of this conflict. Unfortunately the WP article on the civil war is not very enlightening. Both the civil war article and this article really would benefit from brief text (perhaps no more than a sentence) that gave some clarity to what the conflict was actually about.
  • The WP article states "The dissolution split both the Chilean Army and Navy, with some forces remaining loyal to Congress and others to the President." The source supporting this sentence is the NYT 1894 piece. That piece states "The rebellion of the Chilean fleet robbed the Government of Balmaceda of every available seagoing vessel..." This does not sound to me like the navy was split, and indeed the WP article on the civil war (while not a great article) also refers to rebellion of the navy and has this text: "[Around 1891] command of the sea was held by Montt's squadron (January). The rank and file of the army remained faithful to the executive, and thus in the early part of the war the Gobiernistas, speaking broadly, possessed an army without a fleet, the congress a fleet without an army." I think therefore this needs revision, and would be imprved by reference to a text about the civil war in general, rather than relying on an 1894 description from the NYT (which, incidentally, has a bit of a POV tone).
  • Otherwise quite good, and the bit about the lesson learned from this battle regarding torpedoes, and its consequences, was interesting.

Oppose from Cryptic C62: I do not believe that this article adequately summarizes all of the available literature. A Google books search of "Blanco Encalada torpedo" returns over 4,000 results, and the article currently only makes use of 7 sources. After a bit of digging, it is clear to me that these sources are not redundant with those used in the article, and thusly should not be ignored:

  • The first paragraph of Battle says that all of the action happened on the 21st and 22nd of April, but this and this source say that it happened on the 22nd and 23rd.
  • This source mentions the involvement of the HMS Champion, which is not mentioned in the article.
  • This source discusses how much cheaper the Condell and Lynch were to produce than the Blanco Encalada, an important point that is not mentioned in the article.
  • This source suggests that the sinking of the Blanco Encalada caused the US Navy to invest in several hundred torpedoes, a point which is not mentioned in the article.

To put it simply, the research phase of this article is not done yet. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opposes. I'll be out of town for the next five days, so I'd like this FAC closed. MY previous two FAcs were about ships, and thus the Google Books terms I needed to check were sparse. I had hit all of the variations of "Battle of Caldera Bay", but didn't think about using the ship names. I"ll get to work on this. Anybody who has unfulfilled their desire to critique my edits is invited to join Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Houston Texans Pro Bowl selections/archive2, which has a substantially higher chance of being promoted. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good edit spree.
Before I forget: Thanks for putting in the time to bring this article to where it is now. If you end up submitting it for FAC again later on down the road, feel free to leave a message at my talk page, and I would be happy to take another look. Keep up the good work!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.