Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Port Chicago disaster

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've been working to grow this article (with the valued assistance of Cla68 and Falcorian) such that it has expanded from 9 kb to 69 kb in the past 4 weeks and has been given a great amount of detail and analysis regarding the explosion and the subsequent courts-martial. I'd like to nominate it for A-Class review. Binksternet (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: It meets all 5 A-class criteria. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is an excellent article which meets the criteria and I enjoyed reading it. I think that it's almost ready for a FAC, but the last three sections are troublesome and either need to be re-worked or removed. The 'Port Chicago today' section is too short for a stand-alone section, the 'Nuclear bomb theory' should be integrated with the material on the blast and is probably too long (it could be summarised in a short paragraph given that it appears to have been a fringe theory which has been abandoned by its promoter) and the 'Incident in popular culture' section should at least try to explain how the incident has been depicted rather than just provide an almost certainly incomplete list of documentaries and TV shows/movies the disaster has been mentioned in - if third party sources can't be found to provide this the section should probably be removed (by the way, I'm not sure if documentaries count as 'popular culture', and if they do shouldn't the history books which cover this incident also be included?). Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insightful comments. It appears that you support the article as it stands for A-Class but would like to see some changes before you would give it Featured Article status. The 'Port Chicago today' section is indeed short... I intend to put something in there about how the tiny memorial site has been suggested for expansion in order to more easily shelter organized group visits. I think I can add that there was a push to create a US postage stamp memorializing the event but that it has stalled. Think that's enough, or do you think a note about the loading facility of the Concord Naval Weapons Station which took the place of Port Chicago is appropriate?

The 'incident in popular culture' section isn't complete, that's true. It doesn't yet include a 1990 KRON TV documentary in which mutiny convict Joe Small, willing seaman Percy Robinson, blinded seaman Robert Routh and defense attorney Gerald Veltmann are interviewed. This work, Port Chicago Mutiny: A National Tragedy, was narrated by Danny Glover. None of the pop culture items as represented here in the article include critical reviews or assessments of how they affected the public's perception. I can see the value of hunting down that kind of supporting data and weaving it into the otherwise bald entries. Another thing I can do for the section is give it a new title, like maybe "Media depictions" or "TV and radio" or some such.

Regarding the fringe nuclear theory, I feel more like Cla68 in that the section is suitably sized relative to how much media attention the issue has received. As far as working the nuclear bomb material into the article, I imagine I could reposition the part about Los Alamos studying the blast so that it is presented along with other aftermath activities. This would trim the nuclear theory a small amount.

If none of your concerns prevent your support for A-Class then I will not touch the article until after this review is complete. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I couldn't help myself... I added the 1990 docu-drama to the list of TV and radio depictions. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support the article's A-class nomination as it currently stands - it really is a great piece of work. The problem with a 'media depictions' section is that its going to be impossible to identify every time the incidents have been featured in the mass-media since 1944, and even if you could do this the section would fall foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (and possibly WP:TRIVIA). From what I've seen in other FACs, the article is unlikely to pass a FA nomination if it contains this kind of material. I think that Cla68 has done a good job of the 'Media' section in the USS Iowa turret explosion article, and this might be a useful model. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I helped copyedit the article but Binksternet did almost all, if not all, of the heavy lifting in building the article so I think I'm ok to vote on this nomination. I agree with Nick that the 'Port Chicago today' section should be expanded to two paragraphs and the 'Incident in popular culture' section needs greater detail or else deleted. I don't necessarily agree that the fringe theory section should be shortened or deleted. I guess I'm kind of an inclusionist but I personally don't mind including small sections (two paragraphs or less) on fringe or conspiracy theories related to the subject if supported by reliable sources, which this appears to be. Great work by Binksternet on expanding and polishing this interesting article! Cla68 (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The only problems I found were already mentioned above. – Joe Nutter 15:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.