Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Panama Canal/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Panama Canal

edit

self-nom: This is the third attempt to get this article to FA status (see its talk page for archived attempts). Since the last attempt, it has been completely overhauled, and a complete series of articles created around it. It's just had another peer review, and I think it's now ready to properly represent this significant and interesting topic. — Johantheghost 16:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be objective. My own desire to see my contribution (however small) praised balances with my ignorance of the topic; I can't judge if it's covered adequately. And "featured" is a pretty hi standard, going by the Iowa-class BB page (which I can judge). Trekphiler 17:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild Oppose This is certainly a good article but it still needs work: pending a small change (see note 8 below) I feel the article is good enough to be featured. SUPPORT Mikkerpikker 16:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first sentence is rather awkward & the grammar is a bit dubious (the use of present continuous "cutting" and "connecting" especially).
    • One does not refer to inanimate objects with "whose"
    • Reference for the 20 day time saving? Reference for number of workers killed during construction? Several more highly specific but unreferenced statements.
    • The term "man-made" is gendered
    • Proper organisation of the Panamax issue is lacking - basically the same information mentioned 3 times. Mikkerpikker 17:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Response:
  • "The first sentence is rather awkward" — quite agree. I've had a go at re-wording it.
Your reformulation is certainly an improvement but I'm not over the moon with it (specifically, "cutting" in present continuous seems wrong - it is not currently, as we speak, busy cutting through the isthmus). What about "The Panama Canal is a major shipping canal which cuts through the isthmus of Panama in Central America thereby dividing the continents of North and South America and connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans."? Or perhaps even better would be to leave out the bit of dividing the continents... Mikkerpikker 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done! — Johantheghost 21:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inanimate objects with "whose" — re-phrased.
  • References — I've added one for the savings and disease — what else needs it? I haven't added references for the "summary" sections which have a main article, because the main article should handle that.
I'm still not happy with the references.
  1. the citation for the distance & time saving is a book published in 1913. Don't you think this figure would have changed since we were still using steamships back 1913?
  2. The article says "A ship sailing from New York to San Francisco via the Canal travels a distance of 9,500 kilometres (6,000 mi), a saving of almost 13,000 kilometres (8,000 mi)" whilst the reference (in note 2) says "San Francisco is now 14,000 miles from New York around Cape Horn. Through the Panama Canal it will be 8,000 miles nearer, or a little more than 5,000 miles distant" (Ch XX). So the article and the reference agree on the distance saved (8000 mi) but not on the distance between San Fran & NY via the canal (5000 mi for the reference, 6000 mi for the article). Which is it?
  3. Reference number 3 should point to http://www.pancanal.com/eng/history/history/end.html not http://www.pancanal.com/eng/history/index.html
  4. Something I've also just noticed: the sentence "Approximately 800,000 ships have passed through the Panama Canal since its completion" should begin with "As of ...." (i.e. "As of 2001," or 2002 or whatever, "approximately"...
  5. Reference 5 contains info for 2005 so why have the info for 2004 in the article and not the latest figures? (i.e. for the sentence "Canal traffic in 2004 consisted of 14,035 vessels carrying 203 million tonnes of cargo, an average of almost 40 vessels per day")
  6. I can't find confirmation for the statement "Mean sea level at the Pacific end of the canal is on average 24 centimeters (9 in) higher than at the Atlantic end" at http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/biogeog/HILD1939.htm (the site referenced)
  7. "Each lock chamber requires 101,000 cubic metres of water (26.7 million U.S. gallons) to fill; this enters the chamber by gravity via a network of culverts beneath each lock chamber." needs a reference I'd still prefer a ref but I see your point so OK Mikkerpikker 16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "As of July 1, 2003, this toll is $2.96 per ton for the first 10,000 tons, $2.90 per ton for the next 10,000 tons, and $2.85 per ton thereafter." needs a reference (and aren't there more up to date figures?)
  9. "52 million gallons of fresh water from the lake are dumped into the sea by the locks every time a ship transits the canal." needs a citation
Thanks for the continued feedback...
  1. Well, not the distance, at least... I've taken the time out, since I can't find a better ref, and time is meaningless (ie. depends on the boat).
  2. The book is apparently approximating, since 5,000 + 8,000 /= 14,000. I've chosen figures that add up. The real figures depend hugely on routes chosen (which depend on winds and currents, even today), so this is always going to be approximate.
  3. Done.
  4. Done.
  5. Done, and reworded tonnage to "capacity", not "cargo carried" (they don't count the latter).
  6. Darn, sorry; I've added a ref.
  7. I haven't put references into sections like this one, and History, which have a "main article" -- my feeling is that the main article should handle it (and will by the time I get them to FAC...  ;-). For this issue, I've added a reference in that article. OK?
  8. The reference for the whole Tolls section is on the first sentence. How can I make this clearer (because I see your point)? As for more up-to-date, no, those are the current tolls, which became effective on the dates shown. I've now dispensed with the effective date, which is actually pointless.
  9. Done. Johantheghost 00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
for number 8 above: I have also had your problem before; one doesn't want to cite EVERY sentence... what about putting the ref at the end of the section with a blurb (under the ref section) that the website cited is the source for all the info in the above section? Alternatively, put a blurb by the current ref stating the same thing... Mikkerpikker 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. I've had a go — a small change, but I hope it makes it clearer. What do you think? — Johantheghost 18:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sorts it out... readers will (or should be able to) figure out the rest of the sub-section's info comes from the source just cited. (Although I'm changing "assigned" to "decided" - could also be "determined". Let me know if that's ok...) Mikkerpikker 19:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Thanks again for the help in getting this up to scratch. — Johantheghost 19:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Man-made" — absolutely, changed it to "artificial".
  • The Panamax issue — I see what you're saying, but:
  • It's mentioned under "Efficiency" to explain why tonnage is up, despite transits being down
  • It's mentioned under "Capacity", because it is an outstanding issue
  • It's mentioned under "Competition", because a competing post-Panamax canal (such as Nicaragua) would be a competition issue
  • It's mentioned under "Future", because it could drive future changes.
Basically Panamax is a fundamental aspect of the canal which intrudes into everything. However, I think the "Capacity" section as a whole is an issue, and yes, it does look like repetition of the Panamax thing. I mean, "the canal has all the business it needs" — this is a problem? So I've re-phrased "Capacity" to be about capacity, not post-Panamax. What do you think?
Yeah, you're prob right about the panamax issue so I'm withdrawing my opposition wrt that reason Mikkerpikker 21:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have another pass over to look for references needed. — Johantheghost 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC) The references look OK to me now... — Johantheghost 22:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Poorly written (2a). Perhaps start by making the measurements consistent and logical (mi is linked more than on just its first occurrence; mixed up approach to abbreviating mi/kilometers—km will do). But the whole thing needs careful copy-editing. Tony 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "Poorly written", perhaps you could be a little more specific?
  • Re linking units on more than just the first occurrence, I felt that in such a large article, requiring someone to scroll back to the start just to get a definition was unnecessarily obtuse. So once per major chunk of text has been my philosophy. Don't you think that's reasonable?
  • Re "measurements consistent and logical" — I don't get it. Every measurement is metric (imperial), except TEU and "PC/UMS ton" which is defined in feet by international law. How is that inconsistent?
  • Re "mixed up approach to abbreviating mi/kilometers" — in fact, it's always "## kilometers (## mi)". I just completed a major editing effort to make it that way. You'll notice that this is very consistent, even with imperial-first units: eg. "a volume of 100 cubic feet (2.8 m³)". Why? Because that's what the Manual of Style says. See WP:MOSNUM#Units:
Spell out source units in text. Use digits and unit symbols for converted values and for measurements in tables. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".
So, is this another problem with the MoS? If so, can we please get the MoS fixed? — Johantheghost 01:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good article now—well done. Just two matters: I presume that British spelling is used (you'd expect US spelling here, but it's fine if that's the way it started). I'd still be happier with just 'km', rather than 'kilometres' throughout. I note that 'mile' is abbreviated to 'mi'. Tony 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Tony 02:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists of upgrades, lists of bridges... to me these are lists, but you're not the first person to say this, so I've made the change you suggested. As for the "Layout" section, feel free to have a go at prosifying it; I tried, but it looked like a horrible mass of words and figures. As it is, people can extract information from it quite easily, eq. how many miles of fresh water, etc. Maybe it would look better as a table? What do you think? — Johantheghost 20:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment — that's a good point. Obviously I don't want this "summary" section to get too big, but that was a real omission. I've had a go at fixing it — comments welcome. — Johantheghost 01:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. The level of detail of the addition is consistent with that of the rest of the section, so I'll support. Also, I just thought of something—it might be interesting to make more comparisons to the Suez Canal: compare the volume of shipping sent, the cost of shipping, and the factors involved in the comparison (maybe Suez costs more because it's longer or Panama costs more because it has locks or whatever). --Spangineeres (háblame) 14:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Here are the problems I've found on my scan of the article: Conditional Support, see below.
* Multiple statements which appear to be uncited opinions:
  • "There is no question that the Panama Canal continues to be one of the most successful engineering projects of all time." Who says so?
  • Yeah, that's pretty much just cheerleading; I changed it to "More than ninety years since its opening, the canal — one of the greatest engineering projects in history — continues to enjoy great success.". I think given the immediately following evidence that it's carrying cargo at all-time record levels, this is clearly justified. — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That still seems to be pretty similar wording to the Yankees example at WP:AWW. I would just remove the 'greatest' designation entirely and let the facts speak for themselves - similar to citing the Yankees' World Series achievements and not calling them "the greatest franchise in baseball" The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were widespread fears that efficiency and maintenance would suffer following the U.S. withdrawal." What polls showed this?
  • I see where it says that in the reference. Is there a way of perhaps making it clearer that note [24] refers to the first 2 sentences of that paragraph. I assumed it only refered to the second The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With demand rising, it seems certain that the canal will continue to be a significant feature of world shipping for the forseeable future." Who is certain?
  • Me, of course! OK, kidding. Seriously, I have demonstrated — by quoting several sources — that demand is rising steadily, and that the canal is handling that demand. I think that that itself is clear proof that the canal will be important for the forseeable future. So I've changed the text to "With demand rising, the canal is in the positioned to be a significant feature of world shipping for the forseeable future", which I think looks less like a guess? What do you think? — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this statement: "The canal is presently handling more vessel traffic than had ever been envisioned by its builders" What was the amount of traffic the builders envisioned?
  • I would go ahead and import references from the main history article. My feel is that the reader shouldn't have to go to another article to verify this one. I'd rather err on the side of too many references, rather than too few.
  • Yeah, I was only refering to the sections with a main article. =History= looks good, but the Locks and Lakes subsections still don't have any. They could use some for the specific figures (lock chamber dimensions, etc.) The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. Struck

:* I would suggest =tolls= be moved after =history=.

  • The subsections ==Alajuela Lake== and ==The Anchorages== are rather small. They should be expanded. Single sentence paragraphs in ==The Anchorages== and ==Crossings== should be either expanded or merged into another paragraph.
  • The Anchorages topic is too insignificant, so I merged it into Layout. I Merged the two lakes together. The last para in Crossings is a separate topic; it doesn't make sense to merge it, and there's nothing more to say about it. Yes, short paragraphs should generally be avoided, but I think this case is justified. What do you think? — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These shouldn't be too much trouble to fix. Let me know if I can be of any help - The Catfish 04:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work in addressing these so quickly. I have changed to Conditional Support, pending resolution of my couple remaining issues. - The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your continuing help — I've actioned those comments (see above). Johantheghost 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. Full Support now. The Catfish 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, there's still inconsistency in the spelling: we have 'centimeters' (US spelling) but 'kilometres' and 'metres' (non-US). There needs to be a piped link on 'centimteres' if UK spelling is in fact the norm for this article. Tony 10:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it to use SI spellings throughout. — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I meant in the locale of the double unit stuff, not the units themselves. It had "x km (mi)... y km (mi)... y-x km (mi)" and the deaths bit had "french+us... french (year-year)... us (year-year)" which made for rather a lot of numbers all in a row, that repeat themselves somewhat. Being article summary 's good to keep the key numbers, but what mattered for the routes was their comparative distance rather than the exact difference between them (which is still there, for those with head calculators), and the deaths breakdown was a bit arbitrary without the explanation (were the french crueler, or just worse at building canals?). But, dealt with.
As for what to add in the extra bit of space, maybe a line bridging the end of the US construction and the current status? The third paragraph doesn't quite stand on its own at the moment.
I did fiddle with the layout a bit, but didn't get anything stunningly different with the preview button that I wanted to preserve. This minor nitpicking doesn't need to be on the FAC page really, it's a good article, whether I poke the odd bit or not. --zippedmartin 16:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Panama_Canal/archive3&oldid=1138468642"