Wikipedia:Peer review/SS Choctaw/archive1

SS Choctaw

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC and I would like to see what other improvements can be made to it.

Thanks, GreatLakesShips (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: to get quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Already taken care of. Thanks. GreatLakesShips (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Just out of interest, do you have any suggestions for the article? GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to get to it soon, but I spilled coffee on my laptop keyboard, and sent it off for repair, and am now typing on an iPad. If I can get used to this new setup, I should be able to start some content review in a few days. Sorry :(. And my computer is stuck in a FedEx delay because of the weather ... it has not left the FedEx warehouse on its way to repair for four days now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

Hi GreatLakesShips below are some comments about the article. I reviewed this article as if I was reviewing an FAC. Please note: I am not an expert in this topic, so this is a non-expert review.

Lede

The second paragraph in the lede is quite short. I would merge it with the last paragraph.
"and the whaleback ships that were designed by Alexander McDougall." Delete "that were"
"Choctaw was one of only three semi-whaleback ships ever built; there was an identical sister ship named Andaste and a "near-sister" ship named Yuma." This has four references supporting the statement, with a note supported by five references. This feels like WP:CITATIONOVERKILL. Can the less reliable sources be deleted?
Cleveland, Ohio is wikilinked twice in the lede.

Known searches

The first paragraph is very short. I would recommend merging it with the second paragraph, as the second paragraph describes the other wrecks that were found.
"Ohio was lost on September 26, 1894, when she collided with the schooner Ironton." This sentence is off topic and I would delete it.

General comments

Reference 10 and 14 do not link to anything in "Sources"
You have some MOS:SANDWHICH with images and the infobox
Since this is a short article, why are the items in "Further Reading" not used as sources? Can you incorporate them into the article?
I used a script to fix a dash and fixed some other minor problems.

I hope this is helpful to improve your article. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 Thank you for the suggestions. GreatLakesShips (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

I am slowly catching up after three weeks of my computer being out for repair; I will get to this soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SANDWICH with gynormous infobox needs to be resolved
MOS:ALLCAPS, "CHOCTAW Shipwreck Site National Register of Historic Places Registration Form" (PDF).
You can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to review dupe links.
Some ISBNs are formatted, others are not ... eg ISBN 978-0-942235-72-2. ISBN 9781889043036.
Some publishers are identified as authors.
What makes these high-quality reliable sources (or in some cases, reliable sources at all):
- This source has an author, who is a guest blogger (see the end of the page for the unidentified guest author); what makes this guest blogger reliable? https://scubadiverlife.com/two-shipwrecks-discovered-thunder-bay-national-marine-sanctuary/ It appears as a user-contributed post.
- http://www.boatnerd.com/
- https://www.wrecksite.eu/
- https://images.maritimehistoryofthegreatlakes.ca/search
- https://thunderbayfriends.org/
  I stopped there, but you can expect these kinds of queries at FAC.
I don't think the prose is quite at FA standard yet, and suggest that you might contact WP:GOCE.
- The "Design and construction" has several sentences that begin with "she"; sentence structure needs to be varied. She was built ... she was x feet ... she was powered.
- sighted Choctaw. Upon sighting ... same
- Choctaw was a very sought-after shipwreck ...
- A sample only:
  - On July 11, 1915, east of Presque Isle Light on Lake Huron while bound for Marquette, Michigan with a cargo of coal from Cleveland, due to foggy conditions, Choctaw was rammed by the downbound Canadian canaller Wahcondah and sank. Although Choctaw sank in only 17 minutes, her crew of 22 escaped, and was picked up by Wahcondah.
    How about ?
  - In foggy conditions on July 11, 1915, Choctaw was bound for Marquette, Michigan on Lake Huron with a cargo of coal from Cleveland. East of Presque Isle Light the freighter was rammed by the downbound Canadian canaller Wahcondah. Although Choctaw sank in only 17 minutes, her crew of 22 escaped, and was picked up by Wahcondah.

Still working, but have to go out for a bit, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Don't like "the firm".
See suggested rewrite for second para, above.
What is a monitor vessel? We have a link to a monitor warship, which this is not.

History

Don't need to link the United States. WP:OVERLINK, we all know what it is, no one will click it from this article.
Re: Gross and net tonnage. The infobox correctly uses gross register tons and net register tons. The body of the article needs to be corrected. By international convention the old ways of expressing tonnage has changed.
The sentence starting with "When fully loaded" is awkward. "at which time ..." needs reworking. "draw a 16-foot draft" is redundant. Draft is redundant to draw. British and Canadians use draught. Later on you use harbour and artefact; which language variety is used here?
Three sentences in a row that begin with "she" ... vary the wording and sentence structure.

Service history

Does listing the official number add anything to the body (it is in the infobox).
On April 19, 1893, Choctaw was travelling on Lake St. Clair when the cylinder head blew out and the engine exploded. The explosion killed two crew members and injured another. .... how about this ... On April 19, 1893, Choctaw was travelling on Lake St. Clair when the cylinder head blew out and the engine exploded, killing two crew members and injuring another.
Note spelling of harbour ... which English variety?

Final voyage and collision

~~Upon sighting the other vessel,~~ The captain of Wahcondah ... this is implicit to what is already stated in previous sentence, redundant.
slicing into the port side of Choctaw between her 1st and 2nd cargo hatch. ... between her first and second cargo hatches.
Nine days after Choctaw sank, ... change to eight days later ??? Personal preference, not a big deal ...
In the quote, We did not see the Wahcondah until she was within ten feet [3.0 m] of us. ... I am uncertain if we are supposed to convert within quotes. And I am unsure where you could inquire about this. Perhaps at the talk page of WP:MOS ?

Wreck of Choctaw

WP:MSH, don't repeat words, it's obvious Choctaw, change to just Wreck.
Why "known searches"? As opposed to unknown? Why do we care ?
"Very sought after" ... redundant, unless you can find a better or more specific qualifier.

Choctaw today

British spelling of artefact ... which language.

That's it ... I think you are well on the way here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Thank you. I am rather surprised about the prose, as the article has already been given the once-over by a GOCE member. I am a bit busy right now, but I will take a look when I have more time. GreatLakesShips (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few GOCE participants who work at the FA level; if they did, they would be over at WP:FAC :) But now that I have read through the whole article, I don't see the prose as beyond what you can repair yourself at this stage. The sourcing concerns are the most significant; at FAC, you need to be able to answer what makes those sources reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]