Talk:Hurricane (clipper)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 18:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• Within the first 10 words are two terms I didn't know until clicking on the links: extreme clipper and tons burthen. Perhaps the first could be explained somewhere (second sentence?)? As to the tons burthen, is that really first-sentence worthy, or could it go elsewhere in the lead?

If you are not familiar at all with ship articles from the age of sail, you are going to encounter a bit of a learning curve. I've been playing about in this field for some years and have barely scratched the surface when it comes to nomenclature. Having said that, it is not the job of individual ship articles to be explaining basic terms like "extreme clipper" and "tons burthen", otherwise you would have stacks of repetition in every such article encountered - this is what we have wikilinks for. Content for articles has to be on-topic, and digressions about every nautical term encountered in ship articles would soon make them unreadable.

Apologies if that last comment came across as a bit blunt - I was getting very tired by the time I came to respond to this last night.

Blunt or not, it doesn't address the question whether "tons burthen" is "really first-sentence worthy, or could it go elsewhere in the lead". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Construction and design

• Hurricane, an extreme clipper, was built in Hoboken — Perhaps link extreme clipper here, but also explain what it means.

It's already linked in the lead and the infobox, so I saw no need for an additional link. Nor do I see any need to explain what an extreme clipper is in this article—that's what the extreme clipper article is for.

• The ship was originally referred to in press reports as Yankee Doodle — This seems incorrect; the source says that the Panama was incorrectly named the Yankee Doodle. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• "no previous experiences in building fast sizeable ships" — Whose words? Unless the speaker is notable, the quotation seems pretty banal and could probably be paraphrased.

I don't see the need to cite every source in the article itself per Harvard, when the quote itself is already cited to a source, which is directly accessible with a link. The reason I directly quoted is because I couldn't think of an improvement on "fast sizeable ships" - it's pretty succinct after all.

"and his first time building a fast sizeable ship"

• The firm is misnamed C. W. & H. Thomas in American Lloyds, an error consequently duplicated by some later sources. — Anything to cite to?

As the note says, the cite is to American LLoyds the New York Marine Register. The misname is in all the editions, so I didn't see much point in singling any of them out, but I can do that if you think it's necessary.

Cited.

What do you mean by "editions"? Is it just editions of the New York Marine Register that contain the typo, or do other types of sources as well? If the latter, how many? And I suppose it's too much to ask for that there's actually a source out there which independently notes the typo... --Usernameunique (talk)

Sorry, in my haste to respond to all your queries yesterday, I screwed this up a bit. The "C. W. & H. Thomas error appears in both the New York Marine Register for 1858 and in the 1859 and 1861 editions of American Lloyds - which is almost certainly how the error has crept in to some later sources. To clarify this in the text, I will add one of those editions to the footnote, along with an advertisement for C. W. & A. Thomas to demonstrate the error.

• Hurricane was built of live oak, with white oak keel, kelson and frame and "live oak and locust top" — Perhaps "Hurricane had a white oak keel, kelson and frame, and a top made of live oak and locust"?

I don't think that would be accurate, because it omits the type of wood used for the hull, which is presumably what the source means when it says the ship was built of live oak.

Got it, I didn't realize "built of live oak" was likely a reference to the hull. See what you think about this rewording to ditch the basic quotation: "and a top made of live oak and locust". --Usernameunique (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't know what "top" refers to, so I think it's better just to let the quote speak for itself.

• "thoroughly salted on the stocks." — Same point re: speaker/paraphrasing.

Again, it's cited directly to a newspaper. I don't want to be cluttering up the article with names of cites everywhere, it distracts from the narrative.

• According to some authorities, Hurricane was "the sharpest sailing ship ever constructed by any builder — What authorities?

Source doesn't say.

What's interesting is that the sources all clearly hedge the language—it's always "Some authorities claimed" or "Some authorities maintain", while the NYT puts the language in italics, as if to say its not their claim. It seems highly likely that it was a claim offered by the ship's builder/owner, given that it appears in the advertisement for the ship (link): "The HURRICANE is the sharpest Clipper ever built". Perhaps "According to some authorities, including the ship's owner," Hurricane was ..."? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you are making a big assumption that the claim originates with the owner - that would be OR. Adding "including the ship's owner" would tend to cast undue doubt on the claim I think. "Owners" after all are not "authorities", and it's hard to imagine that leading sources such as Fairburn and Howe & Matthews would describe them as such.

• though her model fore and aft is nonetheless said to have avoided concave lines. — Why does that matter? Also, some redundancy with "though ... nonetheless".

Good question. I don't know why, or even if, it matters - however, it does help describe the ship.

"Nonetheless" deleted.

• What's a deadrise? Anything to link to?

Sorry, I should have linked that. I will do it when I come back to this tomorrow, as I am about to log off.

Done.

• It was said that no other vessel had lines below water "sweeter than those of the Hurricane, for, in her, resistance to driving through water was reduced to a minimum." — Who said so?

The source doesn't say.

• "graceful" ... "very handsome" ... "a very novel appearance." ... "that could be read much further than any signals and looked very smart and shipshape." ... "truly beautiful ship" — Who said so?

Again, both sources are cited.

• loftily sparred — What's that?

A spar is a wooden beam that carries a sail -"spar" is linked earlier in the paragraph. "Loftily sparred" simply means there are spars high above the ship.

• rolling topsails — What're those?

I don't know, but there are those who will read an article like this to whom the phrase will presumably mean something.

Update: I did some research on this, and there is very little information on it, though from what I've read, I glean that rolling topsails were an invention that allowed the crew to furl and unfurl the topmast from the deck, instead of having to go aloft to do it. None of the available online sources are sufficiently clear however. As luck would have it, I managed to track down one sole volume that looks as if it might have a full definition, but may not be able to get my hands on it for some weeks, so this will have to be something I attend to later.

Sounds good. That's pretty interesting, and probably worthy of a post-GAN footnote (or even a stub) when you track down the book. Also, anything you can use (with regards to rolling topsails or otherwise) from this source? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, definitely worth a footnote I think. Thank you BTW for pushing me on this point - I had asked myself what the heck a "rolling topsail" might be but decided not to bother trying to source it as it would likely prove too obscure, so your prod forced me to find out! The average reader, I'm sure, would be just as mystified as us and will appreciate the addition. Thanks for the source BTW, I may take a closer look at that later.

• in contradiction of contemporaneous newspaper accounts. — Cite(s)?

Yes, I should have added some links. I will do so tomorrow, thanks.

Added a cite.

Launch

• witnessed by an "immense concourse" of spectators. After the launch, the vessel "remained afloat several days with nearly all her yards aloft, without a pound of ballast in her", a tribute to her stability. — Whose words? Also, quotations need inline citations.

Again, the cite is right there at the end of the sentence, but I'll add an additional one at the end of the quote if you like.

Added cite.

The inline citation in question is needed after "immense concourse" of spectators. Per WP:Verifiability, quotations ... must be supported by inline citations. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to add the reference for that - fixed.

• with some seeing the event not merely as the launch of an exceptional ship, but as a symbol of the growing confidence of the young Republic. — Citation?

It's a summary of the quotations that follow.

Command

• and father of future United States Navy Rear Admiral Samuel W. Very. — It's unclear whether the father you're talking about is Samuel Very Jr. or John Crowninshield Very.

Okay, I'll take another look at that.

Tweaked.

• Samuel W. Very ... John Crowninshield Very ... Samuel W. Very — Worth red links?

Possibly, I haven't had time to do any research on them. I'm not sure what relevance this has to the current GAN though.

Generally speaking, Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They're obviously not required at GAN (see footnote [2] here). But per the GAN instructions, a reviewer "may also make suggestions for further improvements". The relevance to the current GAN is thus that I'm making a suggestion that to further improve the article, red links be added if worthy. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation.

• "a capable master and good navigator" — Said who?

Again, it's right there in the source.

The source includes the language, but without clicking over to the book it's unclear whether it's repeating what someone with firsthand knowledge said, or simply guessing that since the ship set records, its captain was capable. See what you think of my edit, which I think makes it more clear where the description of "a capable master and good navigator" comes from. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't like that edit at all and have reverted. Again, it is casting undue doubt on the source. We know that Very Jr. was "a capable master and good navigator" precisely because of his outstanding record. Lousy captains didn't set records all over the globe.

I think we generally agree on this point—the guy was a capable captain, and the evidence for that is that he set a bunch of records. In fact, I tended to read the wording about "Nearly 100 years later" as saying that he was still notable a century after setting sail. At any rate, I think it's worth clarifying what exactly the evidence of his capability is. What about something like: "Under Captain Very Jr.'s command, Hurricane would set or equal a number of point-to-point or port-to-port records; nearly a century later, he was assessed "a capable master and good navigator"." --Usernameunique (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I much prefer the existing wording here.

Thanks for volunteering for the review. Gatoclass (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Very captaincy, 1851–57

• Prior to Hurricane's launch, a voyage to China via San Francisco, California, had already been organized for the vessel, but some weeks were to pass after launch before the ship was ready to sail. — Unclear if this means the voyage was delayed, or just that some time passed between launch and sailing.

Yes, I noticed that myself when reading through the article again the other day. I'll rephrase it.

Okay, I just removed the middle phrase, since it was pretty pointless anyhow and the cause of the confusion.

• mizzen topgallant mast — Anything to link to?

There should be, I'll take a look around and see what I can find.

Now linked, thanks.

• New York for San Francisco — What was the purpose of the voyage (e.g., transporting cargo, or taking passengers)? At the time, did this entail a trip around South America?

Yes, everything went around the cape at this time, that may be worthwhile clarifying. As for cargo - definitely, passengers, almost certainly, though I was unable to confirm it - thousands wanted to get to the goldfields at this time. Unfortunately, there is zero information in any of the sources about the type of cargoes carried.

Added a word about typical cargoes going to San Francisco at this time, and about passenger bookings.

• resumed her journey 9 February — "on 9 February"?

Naval sources skip the "on"'s, and I follow suit as they tend to get very tiresome with repetition.

• thereafter completing the final leg to San Francisco in 24 days — Did the final leg start at the equator, or at some port?

At the equator - clarified.

• has been described as "only once beaten and only twice equalled" — Who described it so?

Again, the source does not elucidate.

• Hurricane is also said — Who says so/on what basis?

The source just says "according to published accounts" with no further elucidation.

• Hurricane departed on her second New York–to–San Francisco voyage on 9 August 1853, but was beset by much calm weather, and lost her jibboom and foretopgallant mast in the vicinity of Cape Horn; she arrived at San Francisco after a 123-day passage. — Any more details on the Cape Horn incident? Also, the current wording—"but was beset" by XY&Z ailments—makes it sound as if it was going to be a much worse crossing voyage than the first, when it turns out it was only three days slower.

Reworked prose a bit.

• is said to have "never been bettered and seldom equalled for August departures." — Who said so?

Source doesn't elucidate.

• returned to New York in ballast — What does this mean?

Ballast is linked earlier in the article.

I know what "ballast" means, it was the jargony phrase "in ballast" I was wondering about. As this is explained in a section of the ballast article, I've linked "in ballast" to Ballast#In commercial shipping. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• the ship was only 1,040 miles from San Francisco — Convert to km as well? Also, how long was the entire trip?

Convert done, thanks. The entire trip was 100 days, as it says in the text.

• nonetheless outstanding passage of 100 days — How long did a normal trip in a normal ship take?

Six to seven months - added a note to that effect, thanks.

• both legs were later verified by Cutler as all-time records — Who's Cutler?

Cutler is a major figure in US marine historiography. Since he's so well known and ubiquitous to articles of this type, it would seem patronizing to me to give his full name (which of course is right there in the source for those who want to know more).

On reflection, it doesn't do any harm to add his full name, so I've done so, and added that he was a historian.

• Kolkata — Called Calcutta at the time, no?

Converted, thanks.

• "not beaten or equalled for many years thereafter." — According to who? When was it qualled or beat?

Source doesn't say.

• an unsuccessful attempt was made to sell the vessel. — Any more details?

No, the source gives none.

• sailed from San Francisco 16 June — "on 16 June"?

See my reply to the 9 February query above.

Later history

• reportedly in hopes of finding a buyer — What's the evidence for this?

It's the only information the source gives.

• Captain Ichabod Sherman — Any details? Red-link worthy?

Probably not, 99.9% of ship captains were not written about, only a handful achieved a higher profile.

• From San Francisco, Hurricane sailed for Singapore 3 September, arriving 7 November. — "on 3 September"/"on 7 November"?

See my reply to the 9 February query above.

• she was sold — Who bought the ship?

Source doesn't say.

• little is known about the vessel's subsequent career — Nothing at all? Are there no newspaper reports or the like? After all, the source used for this statement is nearly 100 years old; surely more evidence could have been found in this time. A very cursory look on newspapers.com revealed several mentions, such as here and here.

I'm usually very thorough in my search for sources, and while this article was sitting in my sandbox for quite a while before I promoted it, my recollection is that I followed my usual procedures in writing it. Regardless, I have had another look through the usual places after you made this inquiry, and again I was unable to come up with anything. The two articles you cite above were the only ones I found at newspapers.com myself, and they can't be used because it isn't at all clear that the Shaw-Allum referred to is the same ship. I also checked US and British registers and found nothing more than is already in the article. It appears from the available sources that the ship was homeported in Singapore after its sale, and if a ship wasn't homeported in some Western country at this time in history, it will frequently just vanish from the documentary record, which is what appears to have occurred in this case.

There are a lot more than two articles at newspapers.com: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Although it appears to have been homeported in Asia, its repeated mention in Western publications makes me wonder if other Western publications might mention it—and provide the link between the Hurricane and the ship that appears in newspapers as the Shaw Allum that is needed to ensure that they are the same ship. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

References
I'm getting harv errors in the bibliography, which appears to be because ref = harv is now the default for {{cite book}}. Seems as good as any an excuse to switch to short citations (as you can see, I've done two of these already).

Bibliography

Cutler 1952 should have an OCLC or other identifier/link. Done. Inconsistency in whether state names are spelled out (New York, Maine) or abbreviated (CT, NC). Done. Knoblock 2014 — ISBN not hyphenated. Is that really necessary? The link works whether or not it has hyphens. It's not necessary, but it's easy to do and (at least to me) looks cleaner. I've just done it. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Overall

• Interesting article, Gatoclass, although I'm a bit concerned about relying on a 1926 source to say that almost nothing after 1857 is known. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Usernameunique. I worked hard to add context to this article because it is often sorely lacking in the underlying references as the writers often seem to assume that the reader will know what they are talking about. But I think you've been of great assistance in helping identify some areas that still needed additional context, thank you for that!

Anyhow, I think I have responded to all your comments above now. Please let me know if I have missed anything. Gatoclass (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Status query

Usernameunique, Gatoclass, where does this nomination stand? It's been three weeks since this page was last touched, though there have been some edits made to the article within the past week. Can we get this moving again? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, both Getoclass and I have been suffering from some time constraints, although the present delay in this article is probably more attributable to me. While you're here, however, perhaps you wouldn't mind weighing in on the heavy use of unattributed quotations in this article. My general view is that most of the quotations should be either paraphrased or attributed; as I understand Gatoclass, he largely believes that the quotations are difficult to paraphrase, and that the in-line attributions cause clutter. The relevant content guideline holds that "In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation)". This is broadly incorporated into the second good article criterion ("A good article is ... Verifiable with no original research"), since the page on verifiability instructs that "when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate"—but it's more of a tangential than primary concern.

With that said, would you mind providing your views on a) the use of unattributed quotations here, and b) the extent to which this should be a relevant concern at the good-article nomination stage? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Gatoclass, friendly reminder about this review. The most significant outstanding issues are the many quotations without in-text attribution, and the possibility that information about the Shaw-Allum is omitted. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

In belated response to the question above: if there is a quote, it should be cited inline, and those citations definitely need to be included in a GA-level article per the criteria. As it says in the second paragraph of the Verifiability lede, All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. That's unambiguous, and a clear GA requirement. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, BlueMoonset. I was actually wondering about the use of in-text attribution, not citations. The quotations in question are cited; however, the text does not explain who is being quoted. Some examples are:

• The bow was decorated with a "very handsome" eagle's head, which had a ribbon flowing from its mouth upon which was inscribed the ship's name in gilt letters, the whole creating "a very novel appearance."[8]
• Captain Very Jr. would prove to be "a capable master and good navigator",[2] under whose command Hurricane would set or equal a number of point-to-point or port-to-port records.

It seems to me that most such instances should either be paraphrased or given in-text attribution; but this is not quite as clear cut as whether they should be cited (which they unquestionably should). --Usernameunique (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for explaining, Usernameunique. I think adding an attribution to the New York Times in the first case would be worthwhile, though it could be handled in a note rather than in-text attribution if the latter proves awkward. (There are already attributions in the notes, which seems to work.) The problem with the second one, a phrase from the Fairburn source (and presumably by Fairburn himself) is that to introduce Fairburn here doesn't make as much sense as where he is introduced later in the article; perhaps that also could be in a note. However, this one might indeed be better as a paraphrase—the quote isn't needed to get across that Very was an effective captain. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Time to conclude the review

Usernameunique, Gatoclass, it has been over three months since the most recent post here, and aside from two inconsequential changes to the article (a single word and a new wikilink), nothing has been done. It's time for this to be concluded, one way or another, and I'd like to suggest a deadline no later than the end of September. There appear to be attributions and/or quote paraphrasing that Gatoclass needs to address, and if it isn't done, then Usernameunique will need to decide whether the article should be passed or failed in its current condition. Thank you both for giving this your attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I really don't care about either this GAN nor the William D. Gregory one as I only started them both to try and stay in the Wikicup and that horse has long since bolted. If Usernameunique wants to continue, then I will soldier on, otherwise I'm happy for you to close them anytime. Gatoclass (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Usernameunique and Gatoclass: Another month. Maybe it is time to call this one. AIRcorn (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn, I am more than happy to close this as I don't have time to work on it right now, but have also decided it needs considerably more work before being renominated. So if it's all the same to Usernameunique, it's fine by me to close it. Gatoclass (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm closing this for the reasons discussed above. There are numerous unresolved minor issues above. There are also the many quoted phrases that lack attributions. Although this is not a big deal by itself, the more serious issue is the fact that it is clear that far more sources potentially exist regarding the ship's post-1857 history than the nominator has uncovered. The article could very likely become a good article with some effort; certainly, however, it can't with a nominator who admittedly "do[es]n't care about [] this GAN." --Usernameunique (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Usernameunique, I think it's a little unfair to be putting the blame entirely on me for the failure of this GAN (and for the other one about Captain Gregory). You disappeared from this GAN and the other in June, and indeed have barely made an edit on Wikipedia since; had you shown a little more interest in pursuing these nominations, I might have been more diligent in responding to your concerns. And in fact I did leave the door open for you to pursue both these noms were you so inclined, and you turned the opportunity down. So I think it fair to say that their lack of progress hasn't just been due to my lack of interest.

Also, with regard to your claim that I have failed to adequately research this topic, I stand by what I said earlier, which is that I was unable to find any later sources that unambiguously refer to this ship. The handful of references you found to a ship called Shaw-Allum in the 1860s are linked to the topic of this article only by the name and period, and that alone just isn't enough, as ships with the same name often operate at the same time. Indeed, newspaper records show that there was a ship named Shaw-Allum operating between India and Great Britain in 1859, when Hurricane was still going by her original name, and all these later references you found to a Shaw-Allum are almost certainly references to that ship. But even if they are not, there is no way to differentiate between the two vessels and thus these mentions are useless as references for this article. Shaw-Allum, I might add, appears to have been quite a common name for ships, given that they were named after a prominent Indian moghul. Additionally, Howe and Matthews are highly regarded sources and if even they didn't know what happened to the ship after it was sold to the British, chances are that nobody does. Perhaps if you were more familiar with ship histories, you would be aware that the later histories of a great many ships are not known, as they are inclined to sink ever deeper into obscurity as they age.

Finally, perhaps I should add that I unexpectedly became extremely busy off-wiki in late April, and just as I got through all the work and was ready to return to editing in early July, suffered a recurrence of a crippling back injury that I first had last year and was barely able to edit for the next three months - and when I have been able to edit, it was largely to push forward with the ten GAN reviews of my own which I had to make a priority over my own two nominations. It's only in the last three or four weeks that I've been able to return to anything like normal editing, and even then only intermittently, so it's not as if I've had much time to devote to these. The bottom line with regard to this particular nomination, though, is that since starting it, I found a good additional source which will enable me to add quite a bit more detail, but that is going to take time and energy that I'm afraid I just don't have available at the moment. Gatoclass (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)