Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Attack on Sydney Harbour

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 15:06, 14 August 2007.

Attack on Sydney Harbour

edit

Self nomination. I've been working heavily on this article for the past couple of months, and now believe that it meets the Featured Article Criteria. The article is comprehensive, covering all aspects of the subject without delving into miniature. The article is well cited; every contestable fact (and almost every fact total) is referenced and demonstratably accurate. All of the illustrations are public domain and sourced.

For reference: the peer review and A-class assessment performed by WikiProject Military History, and the Good Article pass awarded by Blnguyen. -- saberwyn 06:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Looks good to me. Well written, well referenced, well illustrated - FA time! Here because of a note at WT:AUS, for the record Giggy Talk | Review 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early Comment I've literally just read the lead and the comment about the only attack on Sydney/Newcastle stands out as para 2 and 3 talk of two separate events one on 31 May/1 June and then a second 8 June. Normally I'd read further before commenting about the lead but this reads so contradictory that needs highlighting as my first impression. I asume that they are considered a continuation of the same event but the lead doesnt read that way. addressed Gnangarra Gnangarra 08:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me go on the record as saying I hate lead sections, as I have never been able to write a good one, and personally consider them the hardest section of an article to get right. I've had a bit of a fiddle with the lead section, attempting to make clear that there was a primary attacks, closely followed by two secondary bombardments as part of a campaign of harrasment. Further advice appreciated. -- saberwyn 09:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unconditionally. You may wish to look at the references section. I had to look at further reading to work out who the books were by that you cited. In your citations of these books, i find it better if you also cite the authors first name, not just the last name. But, good enough for FA. Twenty Years 11:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This confusion may be due to the way I've been taught to cite and list texts at university. The Bibliography is a list of all texts used in the compilation of the article, while a hypothetical Reading List would include any 'further reading' texts not used in the article. Also, by keeping all but the most reference-essential bibliographic data in the Bibliography section, I believe it reduces edit-window clutter. -- saberwyn 11:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must query this Fire was returned by Fort Scratchley—the only time an Australian land fortification has fired on an enemy vessel during wartime—but the submarine was able to complete her bombardment and escape A battery in Melbourne at the western entrance to Port Phillip bay has been recognised as firing the first shots in both WWI and WWII. Gnangarra 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have to confess that I've made some relatively minor contributions to this article, but I believe that it meets all the FA criteria and provides an excellent and authoritative overview of the attacks. --Nick Dowling 12:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One minor and doesnt affect my support HMIS Bombay -- this red link needs a stub purely because the name drew my attention as I didnt know Indian(?) ships were in Australia(Pacific Coast) at the time. or link to Bathurst class corvette which gives basic physical information. Gnangarra 13:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support quality info.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I've replaced a few en-dashes with hyphens, particularly in 'anti-submarine', but it is well-written, comprehensive and well-referenced.--Grahamec 04:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think the lead is a great summary of the article plus being interesting in its own right. The rest of the article is well organized, especially considering the amount and complexity of the information presented. The article appears adequately but not overly referenced, although I confess I know nothing about the subject matter and cannot evaluate their quality. Mattisse 14:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Such a tumult of gushing support above makes me wonder whether the previous reviewers read it.
    • MOS says to start with the title somewhere in first para (?), normally bolded. Please read MOS.
    • Why is "1942" linked THREE times in the lead. Since that page may contain relevant info about WW2, maybe once.
    • Perform an attack? No; it's not ballet.
    • "Best-known".
    • "Attack/s" appears rather too much in the lead. Can you use a thesaurus to find synonyms?
    • "twenty-one sailors"—Read MOS on "Spelling out numbers".
      • MOS says "numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as digits, but may be spelled out if they are expressed in one or two words". Changed anyway. -- saberwyn 02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the only casualty was a responding pilot who was killed when his aircraft's engine failed"—"Responding" is vague. Possessive apostrophe awkward usually for an inanimate object. Anyway, why not just remove "aircraft's"? Or was it his lawn mower's engine?
      • Sentance now reads: "The bombardments caused minimal damage, and the only casualty was a pilot ordered to engage the submarines, who was killed when the engine of his aircraft failed." -- saberwyn 02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it weren't the lead, I'd be asking for quite a few references. Check that they appear in the body of the article.
    • "inspiring fear"—No.
      • I believe these are the words used by David Jenkins, Battle Surface (1992). p 250. I do not have access to the text at this point in time, so will attempt to verify this as soon as possible. Can you suggest a better altenate? -- saberwyn 02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "while forcing the Australian military to upgrade defences and institute convoys to protect merchant shipping." "Forcing" isn't the word. "prompting"? Use a thesaurus. "Insitute" is wrong, and needs "to" before it. The last verb group would probably be better early in the sentence.
    • Casting my eyes down, I see intrusive over-referencing; e.g., [5][6] then [6] then [6] in successive sentences. All you need to provide is the means for readers to verify your information. Having flagged a reference once in that section, it becomes a nuisance to have to plough through many instances of the same reference number, close together. Readers will accept a certain amount of "summary" referencing; for example, refs 1–4 at the end of the first para will do for 1,2,3 then 1,4 in successive sentences.

Needs serious copy-editing. Tony 05:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, concur with Tony. Each time I revisit this article, I find issues. The difference between hyphens and dashes hasn't been straightened out; see WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN. There's a problem on converts not being hyphenated (example, A 500 metre (1650 ft) wide exclusion zone ... ) Needs a thorough going over. There is still the issue of a linked bolded word in the title (see WP:MOSBOLD and WP:LEAD). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I thank you for fixing those issues you see every time you visit the article. Links have been removed from the boldword. No matter how many times I read DASH and HYPHEN I am still getting confused over which goes where.
You statement regarding conversions confuses me. I think you're saying 1650-ft needs to be hyphened (or did I just use an endash?). HYPHEN says 500-metre should be hyphenated. WP:UNITS doesn't appear to like either being there. Can you clarify? -- saberwyn 23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:UNITS addresses compound adjectives, but "500 metre- (1,650 ft-) wide" looks ugly to me, probably best to leave hyphens out.--Grahamec 07:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Attack_on_Sydney_Harbour&oldid=1138455145"