Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/Bulk carrier

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failed --Brad (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk carrier[edit]

This article was listed as a GA a year ago and later failed at FAC. Since then, I've whittled down on the FAC feedback to the point that I think there is only one remaining issue which I expect to resolve soon. The article has recently had a peer review and Maralia has been kind enough to work her magic on the article, and has been invaluable in polishing it up. Cheers. Haus^Talk 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1. Is there enough information to start an article for SS John Bowes in the second paragraph of the history section?

2. wikify handysize, handymax, panamax, capesize, Kamsarmax in the article text under subheading Size categories. Some people may ignore the table provided

Question: I wikilinked handysize, handymax, panamax, and capesize. The minor size categories: Kamsarmax, Setouchmax, Dunkirkmax, and Newcastlemax probably wouldn't have enough material to justify articles. ~~For example, I couldn't even find a mention of the Setouch Sea at Wikipedia.~~ I'm taking another look at whether there's enough information to justify articles on these size-classes.

Perhaps a small explanation where mentioned would be sufficient enough to take care of the problem if there isn't enough to support articles.

3. Kamsarmax is not in the table, and what about Setouchmax, Dunkirkmax, and Newcastlemax?

I changed the table header from "Bulk carrier size categories" to "Major bulk carrier size categories" to try to underscore the distinction between these two groups of size categories. Does that do the trick?

Done Yes it is much more clear now as to what is happening in that section.

4. Is the Edmund Fitzgerald worth a mention?

Note: I linked the Fitz where its photo appears. I had meant to say that some mention under Fleet characteristics would be in order since you mention Great Lakes bulkers but now I see where that may veer off topic.

5. Under the subheading Scrap prices would ship breaking be more descriptive? I'm not sure if we would want to mention the controversial subject of poor Indians dying while ship breaking from toxic spew

Done The section is now Ship breaking

6. Under Voyages what is tramp trade ?

Done Good point— I added a wikilink, which I think takes care of this.

7. Under Loading and unloading the statement Loading and unloading a bulker is time-consuming and dangerous needs a cite or an article link.

8. Under Architecture, need to link to beam and draft explanations

Done

9. Under Machinery is there enough information to start an article on the River Boyne?

10. Under Hatches what is Unified Requirement S21?

Question: I changed this around and added a link to UR-S21 itself. Did that do the trick?

My thoughts were that someone who is really interested in bulk carriers might want to read more on that subject but if there is no article able to be made or if the text isn't public domain then where can someone read the whole thing?

11. Under Hull, 8th paragraph, would Naval Constructor or Naval architecture help with naval architect?

Done

12. Under See also, can this section be trimmed down some? Also, ship names need italics.

Done I cut it down from 10 links to 5 and italicized.

13. Throughout the article I'm concerned about the use of "Bulkers". Should it be Bulker's or Bulkers' ?

Question: I'm not 100% sure that I understand the issue. The word works like the more familiar word tanker: one tanker, two tankers, the tanker's anchors.

I should digress on this issue as I'm not so sure myself yet in at least one instance I saw bulker's used as opposed to bulkers.

The article is very informative overall and I'm trying to play the part of a person who knows nothing about bulk carriers or shipping in general. This is all the comments I have for now. This took a bit longer than I anticipated.

--Brad (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, and excellent catches! It's always astonishing to see what a new pair of eyes will find. I picked off some low-hanging fruit already and will work through the rest of your list as the day progresses. Haus^Talk 12:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.