Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulk carrier/archive1

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 not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Bulk carrier

(Self-nomination, more or less.) This article started as a translation of the French FA fr:Vraquier, has been stable for over a month, has been listed as a GA, has been peer-reviewed and I'm finally listing it as a FAC per Raul's suggestion. This n00b may be bitten with impunity. Haus^Talk 02:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support: Needs some minor edits before unconditional support:
• Avoid using single sentence paras. I think the four lead paras can be summarized into 2 paras.
• Please check the image "The Sabrina I" - the text needs fixing COMMENT: Not fixed yet. Kalyan 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I originally tweaked the caption. On re-reading this concern, I tweaked the description at commons. If I'm missing the point, could you please elucidate? Haus^Talk 16:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• lead para: "... vary in size from small coastal trading vessels to mammoths of 365,000 tons. ..." I think that it needs to be dead-weight tons. also add the tonnage of "coastal trading vessels"
• cross section photo can be moved to the left to ensure page alignment, unless someone disagrees. Also, the cross section photo doesn't potray the correct pic. maybe it also needs a vertical cross section for depth view
  • I spent several minutes looking carefully at the cross-section picture, re-reading the labels, and scratching my head. I'm left with the feeling that the diagram is right, but confusing and an idea on how to make it less confusing... Haus^Talk 12:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I've aded a two-tone (sky and water) background to Image:Bulk carrier midship section-i18.svg that I think gives a needed visual clue of what the cross-section is supposed to show. Does that address your concern? Haus^Talk 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fixed now. I thought that the figure was the horizontal cross-section while it is actually a vertical cross-section. the addition of colors clarified it. consider the comment addressed.

• "$30,000,000 for a new Handymax and $30,000,000 for a 5-year-old Handymax in 2004." - doesn't it cost more to buy a new ship?
  • I've added 2 [sic.] notations, an explanatory footnote, and slightly expanded the citation for this assertion as per Korrigan's note below. Haus^Talk 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the term [sic.]? is there a reason why the second hand ones are more expensive. if so, please add it to the note because i am sure a lot of the people are going to be curious about it.

• I added the [[[sic]]] to indicate that while the numbers look like typos, they are indeed not. I've looked around for responses to this question that I could cite, and can't find any. As it stands right now, this topic contains no WP:OR, and I'm wary of adding any... Haus^Talk 20:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Kalyan 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• "$35,000,000 for a large new Panamax and $41,000,000 for a comparable five-year-old in 2004.[22]" - does the 5 year ship cost more than a new ship?
  • I've added 2 [sic.] notations, an explanatory footnote, and slightly expanded the citation for this assertion as per Korrigan's note below. Haus^Talk 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• "This is partly due to new regulations coming into effect which put greater constraints on the building of larger vessels" - can you elaborate (a sentence or two) on these regulations
• " ... count 6,225 bulkers ..." in the first line of "Today's fleet" section conflicts with "5,850 ships" in the infobar at the top of the page.
  • Nice catch. That was a statistic from an earlier year. Haus^Talk 12:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Panama has 1,703. How about HK, Greece, Malta and Cyprus? Please add. A suggestion - the sentence can end as ".... Hong Kong (#), Greece (#), Malta (#) and Cyprus (#).[32]"

I went thru the remaining sections in brief and have no major comments. Kalyan 10:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful comments! I've managed to pick off some low-hanging fruit while the coffee is working its way into my system, and expect to have most everything (double-sourcing the price statistics might take some serious leg-work) resolved in short order. Cheers. Haus^Talk 12:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I can give a few answers (I wrote the original French article) :

• About the prices for a new bulk carrier, the prices are from the UNCTAD , quite a reliable organisation ! Bulk carriers are very cheap vessels (in $ per light displacement ton, I mean) compared to other types, given that they are easy to build, do not require much complicated machinery (if any) and can be assembled in blocks. (note : the documents are available here, I don't know how to insert them in footnotes with these weird en.wikipedia templates :D)
• Yes, sometimes second-hand vessels can cost as much if not more than new ones, if they are not too old (5 years, say). The maritime trade is full of oddities like this one. Refer to the UNCTED document for more details...
• I don't understand what is wrong with the cross-section picture ?
• The full numbers of ships per flag country are available on the French page. Maybe they can be copied on the image description page ?
• For the sentence "This is partly due to new regulations coming into effect which put greater constraints on the building of larger vessels", it comes from the Naval Architect article, which depicts the increasingly buggering constraints classification societies put on large vessels (which are more prone to the safety problems described further in the article) ; basically, these constraints are about increased scantlings, more frequent inspections, more QA during construction, etc. which has made the building of large units more expensive and hard. Hence the greater number of small units being built recently.

agreed. please add this explanation to the article (in a little more formal way). Kalyan 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, le Korrigan →bla 12:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the mods done, i don't see any major issues and though a couple of points remain to be addressed, i am going to change my vote on the article. i think that the article has been well presented even its original form. Kalyan 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Paragraphs are far too stubby. One or two sentences is not a paragraph. I'm afraid this needs to be improved before attaining FA. The content and depth is good. SeleneFN 22:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that "A typical bulker offload" diagrams are great. However, the picture sizes and dimensions should be the same throughout, and instead of typing ellipses to lead the reader from one step to the next, use numbers instead. It will look more professional that way. SeleneFN 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the very productive input! You've pointed out two problems that have bothered me, but I couldn't quite put my finger on. I think I've made some progress redeveloping paragraphs and hope to make more tomorrow. I also look forward to resizing the pictures as you mentioned and seeing how it looks! Cheers. Haus^Talk 02:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Your suggestions for reformatting the diagram sequence worked like a charm. I think it looks much better now! I've made about 50 edits since your comment, most of which geared towards making the paragraphs less stubby. In some cases I combined paragraphs, in others I added info, and I moved a few into footnotes. A few paragraphs remain that could be called stubby, including the last paragraph of the lead and statistically-oriented parts of the Today's fleet section. These are proving very resistant to my destubification efforts. Any suggestions would be quite welcome! Cheers. Haus^Talk 14:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Great work! I like your changes for the sequence a lot! A lot of paragraphs look longer and more like real paragraphs. I have some copyediting comments. I'll continue tomorrow but here's what I saw so far:

• 1) "Various methods have been used to define bulk carriers." - change to "There are various ways to define bulk carriers" Y Done
• 2) Grammar: VLBC and ULBC, are used for very large and ultra large bulk carrier, are adaptations of the VLCC and ULCC designations used for tankers.

• I split this to 2 sentences. It feels smoother now.

• 3) "the double bottom, which was adopted in 1890, and the triangular structure of the ballast or hopper tanks, which was introduced in 1905."
• 4) No paragraph break between "... introduced in 1905" and "In the 1950..."
• 5) "This trade motivated the development of specialized ships, and, due to economies of scale, and an appreciable increase in size increased carrying capacity" (or somethign similar)
  • How's this: "Due to the economics of this trade, bulkers became larger and more specialized."
• 6)Why is the paragraph "Before the appearance of bulk carriers..." placed last in this section. Perhaps it should be first.
• 7) change to semicolon "...phosphate were transported in bulk; in addition, 703 million tons of steel,..." Y Done
• 8) "As of 2005, bulkers represented 40% of the world fleet in terms of tonnage[17] and 39.4% in terms of vessels." should be placed AFTER the paragraph "In early 2004,..." to improve flow.

• I went a slightly different way with this. The first fact is more general and the second is more specific. Since the statistics are only a couple of years old, and are the most recent ones available, I've changed it from "As of 2005, bulkers represented" → "Bulkers represent." How's that?

• 9) "Ore carriers, numbering 157, were also a significant portion of the whole, with a capacity of 20.7 million tons. 101 bulk carriers with a capacity of 3.3 million tons operated on the Great Lakes." Sounds strange, possibly because it is too specific. "number 157" is an awkward way to speak of numbers, but "were also a significant portion of the whole" is even more awkward. Sentences should not start with numbers like "101 bulk carriers..."

• How's this: "Ore carriers are the second largest sub-class, with 157 ships and a capacity of 20.7 million tons. The Great Lakes bulker fleet includes 101 ships with a capacity of 3.3 million tons."

• 10) The paragraph "A study in 2006..." should start off with a lead-in sentence to comment on the world's aging bulk carrier fleet before jumping into numbers. It prepares the reader for what they are about to read.
• 11) "They are designed to be flexible with respect to the cargoes they can carry and the routes they can travel." change to "There is flexibility in the cargo-type they can carry and they can be adapted to travel different routes" (or something similar)
• 12) "Combined carriers can carry ore and bulk at the same time simultaneously, and sometimes even oil in the wing tanks."

• How's this: "and bulk simultaneously, and may carry oil"? (It's possible to have a C/C that doesn't carry oil in the wing tanks.)

• 13) "These ships are often so large that they can only call at the largest, most advanced ports" change to "Due to their large size, they can only dock at the largest and most advanced ports..." Y Done
• 14) "Often an economic choice, these ships avoid the initial, maintenance, and operation costs of cranes." change to "These ships are economical because they avoid the initial cost of cranes and their maintenance." SeleneFN 06:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I played with this sentence for a while. How's this: "The use of gearless bulkers avoids the costs of installing, operating, and maintaining cranes."?

Thanks again for the great comments, SeleneFN. I managed to tick off a few of the items, but must focus on real life for a few hours. I hope to finish ticking off this list tonight. Cheers. Haus^Talk 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• More copyediting comments (once the copyediting is done I think it is definitely FA worthy!): SeleneFN 05:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• 15) There is redundancy in "A number of companies have large private fleets" because "company" already implies "private." Writing "There are a number of large private fleets" should suffice. Y Done
• 16) The "mini-bulker" fleet paragraph can be joined with the previous paragraph.Y Done
• 17) What is the meaning of "Asian concerns"? Use plain language please. Y Done (Changed to companies.)
• 18) Why is the "Crew" section in future tense? I believe present tense should be used.
• 19) "On the smallest ships, one can find a crew of eight" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. You can actually combine it with the previous sentence: "The crew on a typical bulker involves 20 to 30 people, though smaller ships can be handled by 8." This also eliminates the redundancy in "number from 20 to 30 people", since "20 to 30" is already a "number" Y Done
• 20) "The very largest will have approximately 36." A bit too specific don't you think? Y Done (Removed sentence.)
• 21) "Self-discharging ships also use conveyor belts, and havewith load rates of around 1000 tons per hour."Y Done
• 22) The paragraph "Once the ship has discharged its cargo, the crew begins..." should be joined with the previous
• 23) "arduous task" POV. "crew begins to clean the holds..." should do. Y Done
• 24) "...extra precautions are taken, like such as adding..." Y Done
• 25) "tomming is used. Tomming , which involves digging out an area directly below the hatch cover to a depth of about 6 feet, and re-filling this area with bagged cargo or weights.[53]" Y Done
• 26) "A bulk carrier's design depends greatly on what the cargo it will carry , and in particular the density of that cargo particularly its density"

• Here's what I ended up with: "A bulk carrier's design depends greatly on the cargo it will carry. The cargo's density is particularly important. Densities for common..."

• 27) "For example, ore carriers are weight-limited due to the high density of ore, while coal carriers are volume-limited because its cargo will fill the holds before the ship reaches its maximum draught" Y Done Split to 2 sentences and reworded for clarity.
• 28) "For a given tonnage, the second factor which governs the ship's dimensions is the size of the ports and waterways it will travel to will visit and waterways it will travel. For example, a vessel that will engage in trade viapass the Panama Canal will be limited ..."Y Done

I hope you don't mind -- I added numbers to your bullet points to help me manage my progress. Haus^Talk 13:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Great work on making the changes so far! I really enjoyed reading this article even if all the actionable opposes I wrote haven't been entirely addressed yet. SeleneFN 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Conditional upon the above changes being made plus a few more below.

• The caption starts to the right of the picture in my browser. I suggest adding a break to compensate. Y Done (I added a br to the Infobox template after photo and before the caption text. On the Bulk carrier page, the br is right before the text "The Sabrina I.")
• Most of your pictures do a fabulous job of illustrating the different types of ships, but those that are not in the charts should comply with WP:MoS#Images: they need to stick to the default size, not be manually sized.Y Done Very good point.
• I'd like to see no citations in the lead since everything in the lead should be expanded upon in the body of the article.
• Several sentences with very specific claims appear to be unreferenced. Please be sure that everything is covered. Examples:

• "Then the loose grain was loaded with a conveyor, pneumatic tube or grabs, while men with shovels kept the cargo trimmed. These methods were time consuming, labor intensive and inefficient. Like the container ship, the modern bulker has evolved to solve the problem of loading and unloading cargo efficiently."
• ""Pure bulkers" made up the clear majority, with 5,632 ships and a capacity of 279.2 million tons. Ore carriers are the second largest sub-class, with 157 ships and a capacity of 20.7 million tons. The Great Lakes bulker fleet includes 101 ships with a capacity of 3.3 million tons"

• The "size categories" section doesn't make sense with the given percentages since they total to 100% without Small ships. I recommend deleting the column altogether since the percentages cannot be determined otherwise.
• Overdone references on #47. The same reference over and over can be simply put at the end of the paragraph. Instead of blah blah blah.^[1] blah blah blah.^[1] blah blah blah.^[1] simply put blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah.^[1]

— BQZip01 — ^talk 19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent catch on the template bug and very good point about WP:MoS#Images. I'm hesitant to remove references, but will try to overcome that hesitancy today. Regarding your point about Small ships and lack of data, I wonder if moving the Small category out of the table might be a better solution? Cheers. Haus^Talk 11:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overall, nice improvements, but the pictures in the "Examples of bulker architectural plans" section appear to be cut off. In addition, removal of the small ships would suffice. You could simply note that there are many minor ships. Keep up the good work! — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support; it's a fine article, and all my peer review comments have been addressed. Laïka 15:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Opppose
  • "Today's fleet" discusses, for example, the fleet as of 2005, which isn't "today"; can a better name be found for that section?
  • Under architecture, why two separate sections discussing the hull?
  • Is Size : 10 - 364,000 DWT intended to mean 10 to 364,000? Then it would be an endash, per WP:DASH.
  • Per WP:MOSBOLD, synonyms and acronyms should be bolded in the first paragraph only; there is some random bolding in the Definition section.
  • (Up to this point, I was only at Comments, but swithced to Oppose when I saw ... ) There are numerous external jumps in the text. Wikipedia is not a blog or a collection of links; external jumps should either be converted to references, included in External links (although that doesn't seem the best solution in this case) or wikified via articles about the external jump when warranted (that is, when notable). Some of them could be stubs, if notable.
  • Ce needs: Representative freight charges for transporting a Capesize load of coal from South America to Europe in 2005 was $15–25/ton in 2005.
  • Undefined terms (IACS ??)
  • Wikilinking needs (Lloyd's Register)
• All of the above are samples only of issues that should be addressed throughout the text; a thorough run-through and ce is in order. (Nice referencing work!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment
  • On June 5 I suffered a catastrophe that has left me largely internetless and unable to continue work at Wikipedia at my previous pace. I expect to be back in the game in July. (I would have removed this article from the FAC page, but have some concern that would be a breach of etiquette.) Thanks again for all the useful comments and I look forward to implementing them when things get back to normal. Cheers. Haus^Talk 20:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a and subprofessional formatting, breaching the opening requirement of the criteria, in the linking of trivial dictionary words, such as cereals, coal, ore, cement, capsize, seawater—it goes on and on. Needs a good copy-edit throughout. Here are just a few things from the start.
  • "Bulkers", as a nickname, should be in quotes on its first appearance.
  • Comma required after "shifting", or you've got a subset, against the intended meaning. The whole thing needs auditing for commas (mostly missing ones).
  • "the Safety of Life at Sea convention"—shouldn't have to hit the link to find out the year.
  • "Some consider tankers, like oil and chemical tankers as carriers of liquid bulk cargo." Some what? Missing comma. Tony 08:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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.