Talk:MV Missourian (1921)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:MV Missourian (1921)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 21:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Pennsylvania for" comma.

  If this is the one in the lede, no need for an Oxford comma as "for" does not indicate a direction.

• Is there a synonym for "renamed" so it can be avoided being used five times in as many sentences?

  No.

• "7,899 GRT, 7,712 NRT,[2] 11,450 DWT" don't use acronyms without expanding/explaining them first. Applies throughout.

  These are initialisms, not acronyms. Standard with ship articles, per RMS Magdalena (1948), which is a GA.

  But readers should be told what the initials stand for before then in initialisms are used. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  It turns out there is a workaround provided in the templates - amended.

• "Single Action" what is this and why is it capitalised?

  A single acting cylinder only works on the up or down stroke. Most internal combustion engines are single action. Wikilinked and decapitalised.

• "one 30 ton, one 10 ton, eleven 5 ton and eight 3 ton derricks" each of the "30 ton" etc is being used as an adjective so "30-ton.." etc.

   Done

• "Pennsylvania for" comma again.

  As above

• "Company.Her keel" space.

   Done

• "was laid on" aren't keels normally laid down?

   Done

• "first time on 1 July" what year? After launching??

  Pretty obvious it's 1922. Yes, the engines were installed after launching.

• "the largest motor vessel afloat" in the world??

  That's what the source says.

• "and Code Letters MDQP" why capitalise?

  Proper Nouns are capitalised, as are the actual letters MDQP.

  Our article doesn’t capitalise Code Letters. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  decapitalised

• In infobox, why is UK and Saudi linked and other countries not? What's the strategy?

  a brainfart I suppose. Unlinked - I normally link the United Kingdom, but there's no need to link the United Kingdom here.

• "Initially operated" missing a subject.

  see below

• Or that sentence needs to use a comma instead of a full stop.

   Done - I prefer this to a minor reword

• "pronounced a success" by what measure?

  Lack of teething troubles, as explained by the following two sentences

• "from Hamburg, Germany to" comma after Germany.

   Done Ah, the Oxford comma again

• "San Pedro - New York - Hamburg" en-dashes, not hyphens.

   Done

• "America at San Pedro, Los Angeles.[14]" overlinked.

   Done - wl removed

• Subsection headings of "History" section should be in italics if ship names.

   Done

• "In summer 1940" avoid seasons as they differ in timing depending on where you are in the world.

  Difficult one this, the quoted book source only states "summer", which means June 21 to September 20. Missourian had been reflagged to the UK by 19 July. Have wikilinked summer.

• "arrived at Liverpool, Lancashire on " comma before on

   Done

• "was London. The" no need to link major geographical locations.

   Done unlinked

• "and Code Letters" caps again?

  As above

• "the Clyde on" needs clarification as the fact this is in Glasgow and why the ship was there.

  Was it Glasgow? Paisley, Greenock, Dunbarton, Port Glasgow, Gourock and many other places are on the Clyde. She had been there to load her cargo.

• "the Genoa - River Plate route" and River Plate appears to be piped to a redirect.

   Done - endash and diacritic added

• "at 8,776 GRT. Renamed" overlinked.

   Done - unlinked

• "Genoa-Australia" en-dash and all other routes appear to be spaced.

   Done

• You link starboard but didn't link port above.

   Done - port and starboard both linked at first occurrence

• "She was again chartered" last "she" was Bayliss' wife.

   Done changed to Flaminia

• "the Marseille - Haifa route." dash/spacing etc.

   Done

• "Spezia, Italy for repairs" comma.

   Done

• "the IMO Number" number.

• it's a Proper Noun.

• Not according to our own article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Decapitalised. Mjroots (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Since amended, it was a Lloyd's Register number, LR numbers were introduced 1987. Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• "at Kaohsiung, Taiwan on" comma.

   Done

• Sources, year range should have an en-dash.

   Done

On hold! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - Thank you for your review. I've been through the article and made most of the amendments you suggested. Have explained why where I've not made an amendment. Let me know if there's anything else that needs adjustment. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

commas are GEOCOMMA commas. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:  Done Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - I think that's everything now. Mjroots (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, nice work, happy to promote now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Naming of article

Is the (1921) disambiguation needed per WP:CONCISE? There don't seem to be any other ships known as MV Missourian that I turned up in a quick search. Hog Farm _Talk 05:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: there were certainly other ships named Missourian; a steamship of that name was torpedoed and sunk in WWI. Can we hold moving the article until it has passed GA? Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I was just wondering if it was the correct one. If there are others that don't have an article yet, would creating a set index be a good idea? Hog Farm _Talk 15:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Dominion of Canada

When I changed the wikilink from Dominion of Canada, it was 1) to go to the appropriate article - Canada, not 'Name of Canada' where Dominion of Canada redirects to. 2)Other countries listed don't use their long title. E.g. United Kingdom, United States. Those are not the full long titles. 3)Canada is the common name and the topic of the wikilink, and what people expect. The actual name of Canada hasn't really changed over the years, it was just common practice to call it Dominion of Canada. There has been no legislation to officially change the name. It's always been called Canada, since 1867. Alaney2k (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

When I originally wrote the article, Dominion of Canada linked to Canada. I used "Dominion of Canada" because that was the legal name of the country at the time in question. I am a strong believer in not rewriting history. It is not a question of singling out Canada, it applies to all countries worldwide, and all places worldwide where names have changed through time. My suggestion is that we use [[Canada|Dominion of Canada]] so that Alaney2k's target and my use of the correct name for the country are both achieved. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favour of using the common name, disregarding discussion on whether Dominion of Canada is or was its name. Unless the article is specifically talking about the name itself we should use the common name not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not United Mexican States, not Republic of Korea or Republic of Italy. Just common names such as Canada, UK or United Kingdom, Mexico, South Korea and Italy. An article not about the name or country very specifically is the wrong place to use full names. Canterbury Tail talk 12:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Alaney2K's change. The article should just state "Canada". (1) The name of the country has always been "Canada". Section 3 of the Constitution Act, 1867 states that the new country will be a dominion "under the name of Canada". That's the name. "Dominion" described its status within the Empire, but that was not part of its name. (2) I agree with Canterbury Tail that we should use the common name, unless the article in question specifically raises this issue. (3) After a long discussion, a consensus was reached at the articles on Canada and Name of Canada that "Dominion" would not be used except where that was specifically part of the discussion in an article. That consensus took a lot of time and energy to reach. (4) We can't have this discussion in every article where Canada is referred to. That's a waste of everyone's time and energy. (5) If any editor disagrees with that position, based on "re-writing history" or any other reason, they should come to the page on "Name of Canada" and seek to change the consensus, rather than impose their personal preference in any article where "Canada" is referred to. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Just by way of a counterpoint, it's significant that the British Parliament used different terminology when it passed the Constitution of Australia Act three decades later. Section 3 of that Act states that the Australian colonies "shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia". In that case, "Commonwealth" is clearly part of the name of the new country, unlike "under the name of Canada" in the Constitution Act, 1867. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Weimar Republic or Germany

While we're at it, there is a similar issue with this statement in the article: "On the last leg, from Hamburg, Germany, to New York..." If you click on "Germany", it takes you to the article on "Weimar Republic", not the country of Germany. I think it should be a link to "Germany", for reasons similar to that discussed about "Canada":

(1) The common name for the country is "Germany", and for the reasons given by Canterbury Tail, above, that should govern here;

(2) If instead it is the common name used in the early 1920s, then "Germany" was the common name at that time, as stated in the Weimar Republic article: "In English, the republic was usually simply called "Germany", with "Weimar Republic" (a term introduced by Adolf Hitler in 1929) not commonly used until the 1930s."

(3) If the insistence is on using the "legal name", the Weimar Republic article itself states that the legal name was "German Reich", not "Weimar Republic": "The Weimar Republic, officially known as the German Reich". Therefore if the "legal name" is to be used, the quoted passage should read: "On the last leg, from Hamburg, German Reich, to New York...".

(4) "Weimar Republic" is a reference to the form of government in Germany at the time, but ultimately, the form of government is not the country. The article on Germany covers the history of that territory, from early hominids to present day. It makes sense that any reference to Germany should be to the general article on the country, not to a specific form of government, unless the form of government is a relevant part of the article in question. Here, it's not.

All of this demonstrates just how technical and unhelpful the insistance on the "legal name" is, compared to the simple use of the common name, in this case, "Germany". I think it makes sense to change the link from "Weimar Republic|Germany" to "Germany". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

No, we need to use the correct country for the period in time, applying COMMONNAME where appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

In 1922, the legal name was "Deutsches Reich". The constitution of this (first) republic carried a compromise in its first article, it stated "Das Deutsche Reich ist eine Republik" (= The German Reich is a republic), so "Deutsches Reich" was the legal name. In 1919, liberal politicians, as well as Hugo Preuß, the author of the Weimarer Reichsverfassung (Weimar constitution), did not want to give up the name of the state, because it had a very long tradition (Germany's legal name (until 1806) was "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" since 1512, but informally it was called "Reich" for centuries). Conservative (eg. Zentrum) and right-wing parties supported the liberals, where some of them probably also saw (and liked) the name as a reference to the Deutsches Reich of 1871 (unification of Germany -> German "Empire"). Both social democratic parties supported the name "German Republic", in an attempt to display a new beginning and to display that Germany dumped all imperial ambitions. Originally, the term "Weimar Republic" was a derogatory name used by conservative revisionists, Hitler and the communists, and it was not used before 1929. The term was then used in speeches, political pamphlets and party newspapers, but also around 1931/1932 in some independent newspapers that were loyal to the republic. In general, the term was still rarely used until the late 1940s, when historians and journalists started to use the term subsequently (and increasingly) to distinguish between the German Empire (1871-1918) and the Weimar Republic (1918-1933), even though the "Deutsches Reich" existed from 1871-1949, technically/legally and name-wise. In turn, and starting in 1871, the term "Deutschland" slowly morphed from a descriptive term (describing the cultural nation/bonds in the German-speaking areas) into a (still informal) state name. That said, the correct country (name) for the period would be "Deutsches Reich", "Deutschland" wasn't used officially until 1949, when the "Bundesrepublk Deutschland" (Federal Republic of Germany) was founded. So, linking to the Weimar Republic article is a nice (and the correct) way of pointing the reader to the proper period article. While "German Reich" sounds silly to German ears (due to the silly mix of English and German), using the term is probably the only proper way of describing/translating the state name of the period, I guess, as the term "German Empire" clearly refers to the "Kaiserreich" (Emperor's Reich), and because the propaganda term "Third Reich" (used by nationalists and the Nazis to delegitimize the Weimar Republic) clearly marks the post-Weimar era. GeeGee (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)