Talk:Oil tanker/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I did a copyedit and think I got most of the MoS errors. My only concern is that there are multiple instances of ton—not specifying if they are long or short. Is it possible to shorten the see also section by incorporating several of the links into the text? "size categories" should not be under the "history" main section.

•  Done Instances of ton—not specifying if they are long or short (Note that DWT is defined as metric tons in paragraph 2.)
  • few thousand tonnes of deadweight (metric ton per WP:ENGVAR)
  • 2 billion tons of oil
  • 242 tons of kerosene
  • capable of carrying 750 tons of refined oil
  • Karl Hagelin, 4,600-ton kerosene
  • at 14,500 deadweight tons, Maumee
  • totalling 3.2 million tons dwt,
  • The 16,613 DWT T2-SE-A1
  • from 326.1 million DWT in 1970 to 960.0 million DWT in 2005
  • metric tonnes of oil (metric ton per WP:ENGVAR)
  • moved 6,487 billion ton-miles of oil
  • ton-miles of carriage per ton of deadweight.
  • less than 7 tons per spill
  • losses of over 700 tons
•  Done Shorten "See also" section
  • Category:Tankers
  • Crude oil washing
  • Daniel K. Ludwig
  • Prestige oil spill
  • Replenishment oiler
  • Tanker (ship)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are many places were each sentence has a ref, where one for the paragraph would suffice. Otherwise, there are several online references that do not use {{cite web}}—these should be converted to ensure comprehensive and consistent content.

•  Done"Size categories" shouldn't be under the "history" section
•  Done Several online references that do not use {{cite web}}
  • 18. ^ iHaystack, The Life and Letters of Walter H. Page, Volume II
  • 19. ^ Tsakiris, T. (2004): Energy Security Policy as Economic Statecraft: A Concise Historical Overview of the Last 100 Years
  • 20. ^ Jack Devanney (2006): The Tankship Tromedy, The Impending Disasters in Tankers, CTX Press, Tavernier, Florida, p. 17-18
  • 43. ^ Energy Statistics > Oil > Consumption by country
  • 69. ^ Heiwaco, The Coulombi Egg Tanker, accessed September 12, 2008
  • 70. ^ Jack Devanney (2006): The Tankship Tromedy, The Impending Disasters in Tankers, CTX Press, Tavernier, Florida, ISBN 0977647900
  • 92. ^ a b c d e f g Fred. Olsen Productions (2005). "Company Profile". Fred. Olsen Productions.
  • 95.^ "Frequently asked questions about the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill". State of Alaska.
  • 97. ^ a b Cumulative Spill Data and Graphics
  • 98. ^ a b c d International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Statistics

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I would like to see one subsection on rates (including worldscale), ownership and the cycles of the industry, climaxing with the great wealths made in the course of months (and lost again the next year). I also removed the table under "pollution" because I felt it was diverging too much from the core of the topic (remember summary style).

•  In progress New section, to include:
  • freight rates
  • oil tanker ownership
  • business cycles, profit/loss

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A well written and interesting article. There are a few minor things I would like addressed as noted above, and the article will pass. Good luck, and don't hesitate to speak up if you have any comments or questions. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. At first glance, everything seems doable, and I hope to have a fair chunk done tonight. The only lurking concern I have is about availability of statistics for ownership, rates, and cycles. My recollection is that UNCTAD doesn't distinguish oil tankers from chemical tankers, but I'll look into it again tonight. Thanks again! Haus^Talk 19:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a textbook somewhere (though perhaps back home) that has at least a chapter on rates, and talks about all the expansions areas I mentioned (Martin Stopford: Maritime Economics)—just ask if you want help finding references for this, and I will be glad to help. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Review of Maritime Transport 2007 has got a lot of statistics, although not all distinguish between the different tankers. BoH (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the review this article, sections have been completely added or rewritten. While all the new parts are viable and encyclopedic information, I feel the article has become very long. My initial suggestion is to at least create history of oil tankers, and perhaps also create a separate sub-article about design (where even more details could be elaborated). Both sections could consequently be reduced somewhat (especially the history section). For instance, I am concerned that the Coulumbi-Egg tanker is getting too much attention, for a design that is not being used.

There has been no editing for four days now, and if the authors believe they have improved the material according to the review, I would ask them to comment here so I can read through the article again. But there is still no mention of freight rates; one section on this and one on the business more in general would be necessary to pass GA. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My intention is to break superfluous material off into history of oil tankers and oil tanker designs. The section on freight rates/business cycles is in development, and within a couple of hours of being ready at User:Haus/9. I'm concerned that BoH will take exception to the movement of material he contributed, but, as I've indicated elsewhere, I agree that it fails to meet the GA criteria. Haus^Talk 21:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind parts being transferred to a seperate history article; I did it that way on the Dutch Wikipedia. However, I don't believe that the Coulumbi-Egg tanker is getting too much attention. The reason that it is not build is actually something very interesting; not the best design was chosen, but the design that had the best PR. BoH (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(↔ outdent) O.K., I think I've addressed all of Arsenikk's items — thanks for bearing with me. I've also moved the bulk of the new material into Architecture of the oil tanker and History of the oil tanker. I'd request that no more significant additions of material are made while the article is in good article review. For convenience, here's the diff from Arsenikk's last edit. Cheers. Haus^Talk 17:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That will pass the article as Good—congratulations! Remember to nominate the two new articles you created for DYK. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)