Talk:Weather ship/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Declaration: I am new to this process as this is my first GA review, although I have taken a number of articles through the GA process, and have followed the process carefully, so I hope to be fair and thorough. The good article guidelines will form the basis for my assessment. I am aware that the article failed a previous review recently, but am also aware that a lot of improvements have been made since that time.

I have read the article several times, and started to check some of the refs. I will make notes on the content as I go, and will assess the lead at the end, following which I will formally assess it against the good article criteria.

Function

This seems to be the weakest part of the article. I have made some minor copy edits, but it still needs some attention.

• and report them via radio.... It would be helpful to know who they were reported to.
  • Specified where the information is radioed back to. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• synoptic hours. I am not used to this word in this context, so presume it is a technical term, and so needs a simple explanation on first occurence.
  • It is. Synoptic hours are merely midnight, 6 am, noon, and 6 pm Greenwich Mean Time (Universal Coordinated Time) Thegreatdr (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Weather ships also reported observations from merchant vessels, which were reported by radio. Some clarification needed. Did the merchant vessels radio their observations to the weather ships, who then forwarded them? ie did weather ships collect observations from merchant vessels, which were reported to them by radio?
  • The reference does not clarify this. I'll see if I can find a reference that does specify it. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• could activate a homing beacon to lost aircraft. Again, clarification needed. Did the beacon allow the plane to find the ship, because the plane did not know where it was, or did the beacon allow a plane which had ditched in the sea to be located?
  • Fixed sentence. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• All concerns  addressed

Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Origin

Better than the previous section, but one or two issues. I have made some copyedits.

• Grover Loening. There is an article on him, so I have wikilinked it, but he needs context. Ref 14 mentions he was an aircraft designer. This could be added.

• done.

• to take ... pilot balloon flights. Needs rewording, since a pilot balloon is unmanned, if the link to ceiling balloon is correct.

• Should be fixed. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• began ... by changed to began ... in.

• done

• three of the four ships were sunk. Was this the result of weather or hostile action? Probably ought to be had been sunk in either case.
  • Reworded. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• due to its value ... due to an international agreement. I have altered the second due to as a result of, to make it flow better.

• done

• ref 8 mentions a specific cause (the loss of a PanAm flight) which acted as a catalyst to the setting up of the network, and would be a useful addition to the article.
  • It took me a while to figure this out, because it is now ref 9. The phrase has been added. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• The jump from the German boats to the 327-foot coastguard cutters is not obvious. Presumably, the cutters were American? This needs to be clearer.
  • Specified that they were US vessels. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• All concerns  addressed

Late 1940s

I have made a couple of edits, to remove the large number of "operated"s in the first para. Please feel free to improve my selection of alternative words.

• The United Kingdom used corvettes to operate their two stations, previously used by the Royal Navy, and composed of a crew of 53 Met Office personnel. Royal Navy needs to be more clearly linked with corvettes rather than stations, and station ... composed of a crew... does not read well. Some rewording would be good. Also, very short sentences, here. Try some conjunctions, to make it flow better.
  • Reworded the corvette sentence. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• the plan was.... I presume the US Weather Bureau made the plan, so this should be clarified.
  • done.
• The work weeks for the five Weather Bureau employees aboard the vessels totaled 40 to 63 hours. This seems a bit clunky. Try something like The five Weather Bureau employees who were based on board the vessels worked between 40 and 63 hours each week.
  • Reworded. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Weather vessel F ("Fox") was discontinued ... which forced a subsequent change in location .... Why was it forced? Were they moved to improve coverage? Also, in the absence of a map, some help with location would be good. So, in the North Atlantic (or wherever), weather vessel F ... and so ships D and E were repositioned to maintain the coverage, or something similar.
  • The ultimate location of the weather ships is located in the table by latitude and longitude. Added your maps to the article as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Reworded
• Similarly, Pacific weather ship A ("Able") was renamed ship P ("Peter") and moved 200 miles (320 km) to the east-northeast in December 1949. Pacific weather vessel F ("Fox") was renamed N ("Nan") could be In the Pacific, weather ship A ... was renamed ... and moved, while weather vessel F ... was renamed ..., to avoid too much repetition of Pacific. I have made this change, but again, you may want to tweak it.

• done

• All concerns  addressed

1950s

• Was vessel Oboe moved because of the perceived security risk of the Korean war? Some indication that ship Sugar was further north and much further east might provide some context.
  • While a good guess, since it's not referenceable, I don't think we can add that information. I did some digging after the first GAN review, and revealed nothing new. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I see what you mean. I got the longitude wrong (142E instead of 142W) and Oboe was about as far away from Korea as you can get while staying in the northern Pacific. I dropped a couple of maps onto Wikimedia, on which I plotted the positions, (see Talk:Weather ship) which you might consider using. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• offshore northern Baja California needs some more words to make good sense.
  • Added distance. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• These changes caused ship N ("Nan") to move ... Suggest something like, As a result of these changes, ship N was moved ...
  • Changed line per your suggestion. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• All concerns  addressed

1960s

• There was an interest in deploying more ships south of the equator does not appear to be supported by ref 20. (now 21).
  • Check the second paragraph of page 14. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Not entirely convinced. The text says: This representation clearly shows that the vast ocean areas of the southern hemisphere are not covered by a similar observing system. It will be a future task to find an adequate and economical solution for this region. Have I missed something? Bob1960evens (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Should I reword what I have? Maybe interest was too strong of a word. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• All concerns  addressed

Fading Use

• Ref 24 does not suggest that ships were prohibitively expensive, only that they were much more expensive.
  • Dealt with issue. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• their role had been largely superseded by weather buoys by design. Does this mean that there has been a planned replacement of ships by weather buoys? Could be made clearer.
  • Tried to clarify. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Was vessel C the one that reduced the total from 9 to 8, or was this a further reduction? If the first, I suggest joining the two sentences to make it more obvious.
  • Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• which have decreased in number since 1985. It is not clear if this is the ships or the observations. Ref 3 could do with a page number (p.9), which indicates that it is the number of ships participating in the scheme that has declined. Could be a bit clearer.
  • See if that clarifies the situation. Added the page number (by my count page 2). Thegreatdr (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• All concerns  addressed

Just the lead to go. It seems like quite a lot so far, but most of them are easily fixed I think. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Responded to a number of them. For the issues you feel are dealt with, strike them out so I know what issues remain. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead

I am happy with the lead. It introduces the subject, and summarises the contents quite well. I have changed one sentence to improve the flow of the language. I'm not in favour of striking things out, as it makes it difficult to read and the review is an important record of the process. However, I have marked the sections where all concerns have been addressed. There remain a couple to do, but I think we are nearly there. I am now away until 3 April, so will fill in the formal review as soon as I get back. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I've responded to all the remaining comments now. Let me know if I haven't when you get back. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made one further change to the 1940s section, and am also happy that all points raised have been addressed.

Now the formal bit. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations on an interesting article. I am passing this as a good article. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)