Talk:Joseph Hazelwood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Joseph Hazelwood has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Portrait

Currently using Time magazine cover for portrait, does anyone have a better free or fair use image? Thanks. Dual Freq 23:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

[edit] Joseph Hazelwood

I have made some changes to the article recently, the article doesn't have much traffic and I would like some feedback and a peer review to further improve the article. Thank you. Dual Freq 23:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Good article overall. Have you thought of nominating it for GA? A few remarks:

  • Sections "Family" and "Education" are short. You must expand them or merge them into a new section named "Family and Education" or "Early years". Further information about his early years are welcomed.
  • At the top of the chapter "Exxon Valdez Oil Spill" you could link to the main article Exxon Valdez oil spill, using this template:
Main article: Exxon Valdez oil spill
  • Your story stops in 2002. Don't we know anything about him after this year?
  • Section "Pop culture references" should be turned into prose. As it is now, it looks like a Trivia section, which is not recommended.
Thanks for the review, not much has been said about him in the last few years. His last mention that I could find was around the 15th anniversary of the oil spill in 2004, but it was just a rehash of the other material. All I can find is that he still lives in Long Island (or at least pays taxes on a house there), but not much else. I've prosified the pop culture, and merged the early years section. I'd like to find some better pictures and more information about early years, but news articles didn't say much about siblings and I really had to dig to find the name of his daughter. That section is pretty much the best I can do right now. Thanks again. Dual Freq 23:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I reviewing the article against the Good Article Criteria, I have passed the article's GA nomination. Overall I think the article is a well referenced, well written work on a topic that is rather scarce to write about. Outside of his one brush with infamy, there is not much more. I was particularly impressed with how the editors were able to draw together other pieces (like the Waterworld ref) to flesh out the article and really put it into encyclopedic context.
1. It is well written. - Pass

  • The article is well written without any glaring violation of WP:MOS. The lead works perfectly in accordance with WP:LEAD.
  • A minor copyedit note for improvement would be to move the line in Family and early years of being born in Hawkinsville, Georgia and raised, etc to the beginning of this section. It just flows a little better.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass

  • The article uses a variety of sources that clear pass WP:RS and WP:V
  • As a minor note, I don't think his year of birth needs to be cited unless it was under dispute for some reason.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Pass

  • This was a pleasant surprise. As I mention above, Hazelwood is essentially a "one trick pony" in that all his notability is tied into one isolated incident. On the surface, it seemed that in order to make anything beyond a stub you would have had to deviate the focus and write more about the Valdez incident then on the actual subject. (This wouldn’t have been good either). Instead, the article's editors were able to reach beyond the Valdez incident and bring together other details of the subject in order to paint a broader portrait of this "one trick pony" in an article that stays tightly focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass

  • I think the article really excels in this area by taking neither a "sympathetic" nor "hostile" tone to a person that is more or less considered a "bad guy" in history. The added details about family life and life beyond Valdez helps flesh out the human nature of this "news figure" and the article takes an impassioned tone with describing the alcoholism and accident, allowing the reader to make up their own perception of Hazelwood. Again, excellent work!

5. It is stable - Pass

  • The article has progressed gracefully since its creation to its current point.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

  • Even at the time of Oil spill, I don't remember seeing many photos of him. I think the Time cover shot works very well and the article includes other relevant images that help illustrate the topic.


I want to congratulate the article's editors for putting together a fine example of a Wikipedia Good Article. If anyone has any questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 18:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say I am quite surprised to see it pass just like that, especially at the hands of such dilligent reviewer as Agne. I have just skimmed the article sometime ago, not being able to review it throughly at that time, but I saw quite a few issues that would merit at least a hold. For example, in the last section, Hazelwood is said to be "found guilty in the court of public opinion" (I'd say such expressions are even questionable for journalistic work, not to mention encyclopedias), and the last sentence uses a pronoun that does not make it apparently clear whether it's Hazelwood or the sober robot who fell into obscurity. I mean, we all know what is meant here, but this just isn't good writing style, and I actually believe this sentence is hard to reference anyway and better left out - if there is nothing more said in the article, it is apparent to the readers that hothing more happened, and as Hazelwood is still alive, there is still the possibility that some things may happen, making the article instantly incorrect.
Now that I read it I find more questionable "features" - is it really necessary to mention his age at the time of the accident, if the date of birth is just two paragraphs away? Also, the quite important bit about purported improper dealing with blood samples is not referenced. Moreover, soup kitchen is not linked, and many non-Americans are not familiar with the term. Overall, the article is not inexplicably bad, but there is a number of such issues that, IMHO, should not appear in a Good Article. Bravada, talk - 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate both reviews and I've attempted to correct some of the problems noted. The blood sample issue must have become unref'd when I moved the sentences around, sorry about missing that. The age 42 at the incident point was from the NTSB report, I thought it was worth noting since at my screen resolution, the birth year is above screen by that point in the article. Also, the entire paragraph was talking about milestones in his career and ages they occurred, it seemed appropriate to note his age at the time of that significant event in his life. I have removed the Public opinion / court sentence and the summary. I was looking for a start and finish for that paragraph to help justify it, as opposed to being just a simple list of pop culture refs. In August this article was 50% Exxon Valdez and 50% pop culture. It's pretty low traffic and I wanted a sense of what else could be done with the article to improve it. The peer review only got one comment, which recommended I seek GA status. I certainly would like a chance to correct any deficiencies prior to delisting and any further assistance or recommendations are appreciated. Thanks in advance. --Dual Freq 00:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I am happy to see you working on the article even after the promotion to GA - I don't think there is an immediate need to delist it. I have done a bit of copyediting myself, and I must say I have encountered another term that could be linked to or at least explained - "assistant master" (Hazelwood is said to have become one for Exxon Valdez). As concerns the age thing, in my browser the line would appear just when the one with the birthday would disappear, but still I don't think the age is of any great relevance (we could also mention how old his daughter was or how long had he been married), and it looks strange reiterated just like that. Bravada, talk - 12:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look this weekend, but I'm not entirely certain what an alternative master is. I used the term that a source used, [1] a source that cites the NTSB report (which is not available online). My guess would be either alternative as in the ship had two masters (Captains) and Hazelwood was the alternate or backup, making him Captain of the ship in the Primary masters absence. It could mean there were two crews, like aboard a nuclear ballistic missile submarine. Some of them have two captains, one for the two crews, a blue crew and a gold crew. In this case that would make Hazelwood the master of the alternate crew. I don't know which is correct, but I will try to find out. Thanks for fixing my poor usage of 's, I should have paid more attention in English grammar class 15+ years ago. --Dual Freq 01:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to engage some possible experts in WikiProject Ships about the assistant Master line. No response thus far, I'm reluctant to remove the statement since it came from the NTSB report. I'm continuing to look for other material. --Dual Freq 23:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort! I don't think it is that important, and if the sources say so, it probably is so. The article is looking really good now IMHO, but I would still try to touch up a few details:
  • In "Exxon Valdez Oil Spill", the amount of oil discharged (last sentence of first paragraph) is unreferenced.
  • In the same section, the second paragraph seems to be entirely sourced from [3], so there is no need to repeat refs after every sentence.
  • "Pop cultural references" - I wonder whether it couldn't be neatly divided into two paragraphs to make it more readable. Also, some bits (comic strips, Futurama) appear to be unreferenced.
That's all I could spot, I guess I grew too familiar with the article to be able to judge it well, but I think it is really close to being a really good GA. Bravada, talk - 23:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I don't think the far side item can be ref'd directly since the artist doesn't allow online reproductions and I think that line came from someone's memory rather than an actual text source. Since I also remember the strip mentioned, I didn't remove it. --Dual Freq 00:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance for Georgia

"High - Subject is notable in a significant and important way within the field of Georgia, but not necessarily outside it." No offense, but Hazelwood was born in Georgia but has spent the vast majority of his life in Long Island. I don't know when they moved, but it was prior to High School as he graduated in New York. --Dual Freq 22:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article is well-written, but could use more sources, especially in the popular culture section. A photographic image of him would be nice too and the lead could be extended a little. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)