Talk:HMS Belfast/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 23:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• MOS:IMAGES - "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other."
• Wikipedia:Captions - "More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting"
• WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION - HMS Belfast redirects here as no other ships use that name, so article name doesn't need disambiguating by hull number. HMS Belfast (C35) should redirect to HMS Belfast - though see next comment....
• Wikipedia:Splitting and WP:Summary style - There appear to be two articles - HMS Belfast, the Royal Navy Town-class cruiser, and HMS Belfast, the museum ship. My suggestion is that HMS Belfast, the museum ship should be split off into an independent article, and both articles should link to each other with a summary section. A disambiguation page should be set up directing readers to the appropriate place.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability - There are statements and entire paragraphs that are uncited and could be challenged - such as "When first opened to the public, visitors were limited to the upper decks and forward superstructure," "From May 1966 to 1970 she was an accommodation ship for the Reserve Division at Portsmouth, and on 4 May 1971 she was 'reduced to disposal' and moored in Fareham Creek to await scrapping," and "With the end of the war, Belfast remained in the Far East, conducting a number of cruises to ports in Japan, China and Malaya and sailing for Portsmouth on 20 August 1947." This is not an exhaustive list, just a selection.

More later. SilkTork *^YES! 17:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Name

The Ship project have got back to me. There is a guideline on pre-disambiguating ship names (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Disambiguating_ships_with_the_same_name) which means that HMS Belfast (C35) is acceptable. SilkTork *^YES! 06:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Splitting

Resolved

Thanks to everyone for their input. The very clear consensus is that it is appropriate to deal with all stages of the ship's history in the one article, and that having two Infoboxes is acceptable. IxK85 and Geometry guy indicate that the lead could be edited to cover the entire history of the ship more fully to give the reader a potted history, and then the reader may go to the appropriate sections for more detail, and that is fully compliant with WP:Lead and the GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 08:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved - article not to be split

Re: images and captions, those are probably easily addressed. As regards the move, I've no objection but haven't moved a page before. As regards splitting, I don't think that would be beneficial; the ship's value as a museum derives from its service history. Further, other museum ships such as HMS Victory, HMS Cavalier (R73) and various US Navy museum ships such as USS Texas and USS New Jersey don't split service history and museum history either. Regarding citations, facts in those those uncited paragraphs are from extant citations that follow, but I can easily amend that by adding some more links to them.--IxK85 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look through articles on other museum ships and most deal with the museum aspect in one paragraph or less, though USS Alabama (BB-60) breaks out into Battleship Memorial Park, which is not necessarily ideal, as Battleship Memorial Park is barely more detailed than the section in the parent article. Then I came upon USS Constitution, which is an excellent article with a very detailed and useful Museum ship section. I can see how it works there, and that may be because it doesn't overbalance the article, and it doesn't have an info box. I think that serious consideration could be given to either splitting HMS Belfast into two articles, or to presenting the material so it appears less like two separate articles - that would mean not having two infoboxes - a decision should be taken as to what is the main focus of the article - either it is about a military ship which has ended its career as a museum ship, or it is about a museum ship which started its career as a military ship. If it is about two things then it should be two articles. If it is about the one thing, then remove the infobox of the other thing, and present it in the same manner as USS Constitution. As always, this is a suggestion, not a direction, and discussion is actively encouraged.

There is no guideline on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines regarding the naming of ship articles, and even if there were, such guidelines could not contravene Wikipedia:Naming conventions which is a policy, so a move to HMS Belfast would be appropriate. However, as I have come upon other ship articles which have the hull number as part of the article name, even when there are no other articles on ships with the same name, it appears to have been a convention by at least one editor in the past, and it may be worth discussing with the user who moved this article name, User:David Newton, and WikiProject Ships to ensure there is no conflict. I will initiate that discussion.

Cites. At one time it was acceptable for people to precis material from one or two book sources and simply to place the names of the books at the ends of articles. This is no longer acceptable. Readers like to track exactly where a piece of information has come from. So inline cites on challengable sentences, linking to the page of the source, has become the expectation. I agree and support such an expectation. I also agree that we need to use a range of sources to ensure an article is fully balanced and authoritative. A Bibliography of sources used is useful. Not a GA requirement, but worth adding to the article. SilkTork *^YES! 11:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Captions should now all be three lines or less.

Images - sandwiching fixed, so far as I can see.

Cites - also fixed, so far as I can tell. Please point out any I've missed, or any passages that need more.

Splitting - I'm afraid I don't see the advantage to splitting the article. I would imagine that anyone looking for information on HMS Belfast would expect to find service history and information on her as a museum in the same place. Is it a requirement that an article only have one infobox? So far as I can see, removing one or the other would mean losing a great deal of worthwhile information that would be difficult to integrate in a readable way, and splitting would be counter-intuitive. I don't see that deciding on a 'main focus' of either a warship or a museum ship is actually necessary; Belfast is entirely both. The Constitution article is obviously a good one, and I have tried to streamline the museum secton of this article accordingly. --IxK85 (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Have further restructured the article. --IxK85 (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also be entirely opposed to the splitting of the article which runs counter to all precedent here. I cannot agree with this 'either it is about a military ship which has ended its career as a museum ship, or it is about a museum ship which started its career as a military ship. If it is about two things then it should be two articles', as IxK85 says, this is completely counter-intuitive. Similarly two infoboxes do not seem problematic. Belfast is a ship, at one time a warship and at another time a museum ship. Just as a person may be a notable politician at one stage of his life and then become a notable author. I would expect both parts of this life to be covered in full detail, and not that a choice would have to be ,ade over which was the more significant, and so to have one section would be overemphasised at the expense of the other to avoid 'overbalancing'. Nor would I expect to have to go to two different articles, one about his career as a politician and another about his career as an author. Benea (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, and there is much in what you say - though we do organise articles on very important people by having sub-articles on different aspects of their career. My concern with this article is that when looking it over I saw that there was a lot of information on Belfast's situation as a museum ship, and this is underscored by having an infobox giving an overview on that aspect. When one aspect of a topic is dealt with in detail we split off that aspect into another article. The guidance on that is given in WP:Summary style. Putting an infobox in a lower section is non-standard use, and is not provided for in the MoS guidance - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), which suggests: "Insert at the top of articles and right-align." I looked through examples of other articles on museum ships and didn't find a treatment similar to that used here, so current guidance and usage goes against the way this article is presented. I like the recent edits which have tidied up the presentation, and made the transition from service ship to museum ship less abrupt. However, it is still worth considering either tightening up the details on its use as a museum ship (the Preservation 1967-1971 section, for example, is about administrative decisions at the Imperial War Museum, and - while linked - is not directly about HMS Belfast) or moving the bulk of the detail to a dedicated article about its function as a museum ship - in which case such background information as the Preservation 1967-1971 section could be dealt with more appropriately. The process behind having a sub-article are the same as with the parent museum article - Imperial War Museum, which gives summaries of its branches, and offers links to more detailed articles - Imperial War Museum Duxford, Churchill Museum and Cabinet War Rooms, etc. It is a standard treatment, and for examples of articles on people which are split into sub-articles - William Shakespeare has Shakespeare's life, Shakespeare's plays, Shakespeare's collaborations, Shakespeare in performance, etc; Winston Churchill has Winston Churchill in politics: 1900–1939, Later life of Winston Churchill, Winston Churchill as historian, Winston Churchill as writer, etc. SilkTork *^YES! 09:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see that splitting would deliver worthwhile benefits. On the point about WP:Summary style, I'm not sure that that guidance necessarily comes into play. WP:SS refers to splitting long articles; the guideline at WP:LENGTH gives a suggested figure for a 'long' article as being 30-50kB, or as 6,000-10,000 words of prose. This article is currently 45kB (somewhat long, but largely complete and unlikely to get much longer) and around 4,500 words (not noticeably long). The museum section is 1,500 of those 4,500, and so doesn't strike me as being unbalancing or too detailed. The point about layout from WP:IBX is taken, but the guideline doesn't state that multiple boxes are to be avoided. As far as I can see, removing the museum infobox would be detrimental, and would result in the need to integrate a large amount of text, as well as leaving HMSB as an anomaly as the only branch of the IWM not to include a museum infobox. Regarding the Preservation 1967-71 section, the purpose of that section is to explain where the idea came from to preserve HMSB in the first place, as warship preservation is very much the exception and not the rule. If it comes across as being about administrative decisions, I'll see if I can't rephrase it to make the point clearer. I don't see that the division of 'Imperial War Museum' into articles on its constituent branches is necessarily analogous to dividing an article about the life of a ship into two parts, when the two are so closely linked. (Just in case it's not immediately apparent, I very much appreciate the time you're taking on this article, btw) --IxK85 (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary style is not just about overall article length, it is about organising information in a helpful manner. Sometimes as editors we have a desire to include a lot of information - this may be because we have an interest in a subject, or simply because we have the information, and we wish to use it, and we may wish to keep it all in the same place. There are times when the reader can get forgotten in the pleasure and intensity of developing an article. Wikipedia:Summary_style#Rationale gives a helpful background to the reasoning behind organising articles in manageable sections - it is for the benefit of the reader. If I had found a lot of detail on Belfast's activity in the Battle of North Cape I would be saying the same thing - but that is managed quite well - there is a summary of Belfast's involvement, and a link to the article on the battle where more detail can be found by the reader if they wish. Now, my view is that as a reader I might wish to look up the museum ship HMS Belfast, and read details of that museum, which would include a brief summary of the important events in the ship's service history. At the moment I have to read quite a lot of service history - 2,200 words, which is rather more than I had expected, and would wish for (between 15 and 20 minutes average reading time). On the other hand I might wish to read about the service ship, HMS Belfast, and would like to know what happened to her when she ended her service. I would like to have a brief overview of her life after service - I would not wish to read through 2,000 words on that. We have to provide for the fact that Wikipedia is a reference tool, and we have to organise our information for the different needs of our readers. I am not suggesting that any of the information is lost, rather that it is organised in a more helpful manner. At the moment the article is set up for only one type of reader - the reader who wishes to read 4,200 words on the entire history of HMS Belfast. What I am suggesting is that the article is geared for the reader who wishes to read about Belfast's service history, the reader who wishes to read about the museum ship, and the reader who wishes to read about both. It's a win, win, win situation. Keeping it as one article only serves the interest of one reader, so two groups are left unsatisfied.

The principle of splitting articles is sound, and is standard practise. What would be more a compelling argument for not splitting would be to say that the service history and the museum ship history are not distinct (and the current organisation of the article does lean toward this argument). But that argument is confounded by the very existence of the infobox which is clearly indicating that there is a separate role for the ship as a museum ship. There is also the consideration that Belfast's current role as a museum ship is more notable than her role as a service ship, so the museum infobox might be more appropriate at the top. But I don't think we should even go down that route! What I could do is create a quick and crude example of how the articles could be split, and link them here for us all to look at and consider. SilkTork *^YES! 11:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Example split====

• HMS Belfast museum ship

• HMS Belfast (C35)

Very quick and crude, but see above examples of how the article could be split. SilkTork *^YES! 12:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I should note that I am strongly opposed to a split of the article for most of the reasons that have been put forward for that argument above. As to your contention that there is not another ship article with a lower-section infobox, you didn't look at USS Texas (BB-35). Also, such a decision to split should be placed open for much more community input, so at a minimum I would insist upon such a discussion occurring at a more central location such as WT:SHIPS. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to split this article. All of it is on topic to the ship itself. This conversation should not be part of a requirement of GAR process. Discussion over the split should be directed elsewhere. In the meantime pass or fail the article accordingly or ask for a second opinion. --Brad (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't agree that splitting the article would create a greatly more useful organisation for the reader. At the moment the museum-interested reader gets the potted service history in the lead, and the section structure lets them then skip to the Preservation (or later) section. Likewise a naval history-interested reader gets the fact that Belfast is a museum ship and the broad facts of her preservation from the lead and the infobox, and then simply scrolls down to a more detailed service history. I do take some of your point about summaries of service/museum, and perhaps the lead could be expanded a bit more to provide them? I also agree with others that views on splitting ought to be sought from the widest possible number of editors. Perhaps a notice could be posted at WP:SHIPS and WP:MUSEUMS?--IxK85 (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their contributions. It's good to get a range of views, and discussion is always valuable and welcome. I agree it's worth getting an overview from someone else, and I have requested input from people involved in GA and Summary style. IxK85 makes a good point that the lead itself can carry the overviews of the ship's two main periods - and development of the lead would be needed in any case to meet requirements of WP:Lead. I agree with Brad that the information in the article is on the topic of the ship - my query (and it is a query, which I am still looking into - as I have said all along, I am not convinced myself that a split is needed, but I would like to explore the option fully), my query is if the article meets requirement 3a of the Good Article criteria: "Broad in its coverage: ... b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." The question in my mind, which was prompted by seeing the Museum Infobox, is if the information on the ship's period as a museum ship is distinct and separate from the rest of the ship's history, and if it would serve the reader better by being dealt with in a sub-article, as per WP:Summary style. A second question, is the use of the Infobox. While MoS indicates that an Infobox should be placed at the top right of an article, as IxK85 points out, there is no specific guidance against having an Infobox elsewhere in an article, and MBK004 has found an article on a museum ship which also carries two Infoboxes. I am inclining to IxK85's point that the summaries can be dealt with in the lead, but I would like to get an informed second opinion on that before moving on. SilkTork *^YES! 17:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I personally don't see that anything will be gained by splitting the article. And I don't see any problem with two info-boxes, either. The page is 45 kb, which is OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments on "splitting" by Geometry guy, per request

SilkTork asked me to take a look at this without saying what the proposed split was, so I had a look at the article before coming here. My conclusion is that "split" is the wrong word, and may have generated unnecessary disagreement. I agree with comments above that the post-service history derives from and is closely related to the service history. Similarly, the post-service use of Belfast is a significant part of the ship's notability. However, on my read through of the article, I was immediately struck by the level of detail concerning the post-service history, which I did not expect in an article on a ship. In a case like this, summary style would suggest a spinout article, which is summarized in the main article. Such an article would be beneficial to readers who want to know about the museum without having to wade through the service history first.

In terms of this article, the issue is to ensure that the post-service history does not imbalance the article and to rewrite the lead accordingly (which is currently devotes more attention to the post-service history). I think it would be worthwhile to have a separate article on the museum, in which the service history is background, but that is just a personal opinion. Geometry guy 21:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• SilkTork also asked me to comment, but I'm afraid I disagree with Geometry Guy. The post-service history is part of the ship's story. Splitting that story up would make sense if the article were too long, but at just 26 kB of readable prose (46 kB overall), I would say there's no need to do that, and as a reader, I prefer to have the entire history accessible on one page. SlimVirgin 22:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  Then we are agreed that splitting the story into disjoint articles makes no sense. If you still disagree, what do you disagree about? Geometry guy 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I understood your post to say that you thought two articles would be a good idea. If I misread, my apologies. SlimVirgin 05:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Images

Images are compliant, and pass. On a personal note, given that there are a number of images of Belfast, here, I wonder if a better one than File:Hms.belfast.london.arp.jpg can be found. SilkTork *^YES! 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Prose

• Query this: "The turret would represent of a number of classes of cruiser..." in Preservation 1967-1971 section. SilkTork *^YES! 15:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Prose is clear and informative. SilkTork *^YES! 16:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

MoS compliance

• Lead needs finishing along the lines previously discussed.
• I have queries regarding the layout. There are a number of short sections and sub-sections. This is not an issue, and will not impact on the GA review, but I wondered if there were a different way of organising the material so it isn't so choppy. I think there is a balance between having helpful sections that readers can go to directly, and disturbing the flow. I wonder if 1940-1942: Repairs and 1939: Prize capture and mining, for example, could be merged into one section. SilkTork *^YES! 16:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Jargon. For the general reader, some explanation of "On 6 August she sailed for the UK to pay off and recommission" would be useful. There appears to be two uses of the term "pay off" - one is to discharge the crew, and the other is to remove the ship from service. SilkTork *^YES! 16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Also "entered reserve". SilkTork *^YES! 16:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead has been tweaked. I reviewed WP:LEAD, but am not sure what remains to be added or changed. Regarding sections, 1939 and 1940-42 probably can be usefully merged. I think prewar and postwar service are probably best left as they are. Will see if I can tighten some of the terminology as well.--IxK85 (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Cites

Article is referenced and there's no indication of Original Research. There are, however, some areas where close citing is required (direct quotes for example). SilkTork *^YES! 16:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe all direct quotes are now referenced, please point out any areas you feel need more.--IxK85 (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pass

The lead does now cover the major aspects of the ship's history. There is still work to be done - the jargon elements for example, still need attention - but this substantially meets GA criteria. Well done! SilkTork *^YES! 10:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)