# Talk:CS Alert (1890)

Did anything noteworthy actually get decoded because the Germans had to switch to radio? Gradenkian (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, something very noteworthy was decoded; the Zimmermann Telegram which was partly responsible for the US entering the war.  It wasn't a radio intercept, it was a diplomatic cable that had to go via London because of the cable cutting.  It was supposed to be a secure (against the British) route because it was controlled by the Americans, but the British secretly intercepted it.  The British put about a story that it was a radio intercept to hide the fact they were monitoring American communications. I might put something in the article about that later. SpinningSpark 13:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Gradenkian (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

As German cables, probably never.  Many German cables were diverted to Allied destinations during the war.  I don't have any information on Alert being involved in any of this work.  The Azores cable, for instance, was diverted into Penzance in 1917 by Colonia (Haigh, p. 330).  After the war, German cables and cable ships were seized as war reparations and never returned to Germany. SpinningSpark 13:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:CS Alert (1890)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 21:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I will put the GA nomination on hold for now while you look things over.  Let me know when you are ready for me to take another look, I won't interrupt you while you make some changes.  RecycledPixels (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to review this.  I'm never quite sure how to reply to comments made by reviewers who use templates.  For now, I'm putting replies within the template.  Please let me know if you want me to do it differently. SpinningSpark 14:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
How you've done it so far is fine.  I've seen people bold or italicize their responses to set them apart, indenting works just as well.   If you don't want to bold or italicize, signing your comments as you have done also works to separate your remarks from my remarks.   I tend to use italics and indents when I respond to reviews.  Sorry if the template makes it complicated for you; I like it because it keeps me focused on the relatively generous GA criteria instead of everything that I'd like to see happen to the article to bring it up to brilliant FA state.  RecycledPixels (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I think I've covered all your comments now.  I'm thinking of adding this image of the cable-winching gear and expanding the description of its operation.  But with or without that, I'm ready for this to be rereviewed. SpinningSpark 10:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Before I get too far into the second review, explain again why there is a photograph of the CS Monarch at the bottom of this article about CS Alert (1890).  I did not really understand your explanation in section 6b.  RecycledPixels (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
It's following the history of the cable-handling gear from Alert.  The gear was transferred to Alert (2) [here's a picture], but was later discarded for the same gear fitted to Monarch (3) [here's a picture].  Ok, Monarch (3) relevance is a little tenuous and the cable gear is not very clear in the picture, but there is no better article in which to park this image.  I would also justify both images on the grounds that they quite nicely show to the reader the contrast between Alert and the later purpose built cable ships. SpinningSpark 11:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


### Second Review
Second review of the article.  RecycledPixels (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I can't accept your comments on image relevance.  They are not irrelevant and declining on that basis is somewhat overinterpreting MOS:PERTINENCE.  Besides which, MOS:PERTINENCE seems to have been sneaked into the requirements by way of a wikilink without any real discussion.  As far as I can tell, it was added as part of a copyedit/rearrangement of transclusions, not with any consensus that it should become part of GA requirements.  The MOS sections that are requirements are listed at criterion 1b and it has always been understood that those are the only parts the MOS that are required at GA. SpinningSpark 22:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The images relevant to the subject criteria appears to have been added to the GA criteria on April 18, 2007, after a discussion on the Good article criteria talk page, archived at Wikipedia talk:Good_article_criteria/Archive_3#Proposed_reworking_of_the_criteria.  No worries, I don't need to have the final word on this, so I will post a request for an independent second opinion on the Good Article Nominations page and I'll go along with whatever that third person thinks.  I'll also try to reach out to someone on the Wikipedia:Good article help/mentor list (though most of them are pretty inactive, I see a couple who are active, so it will probably result in a faster response). RecycledPixels (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@RecycledPixels: (pinging just in case you have stopped watching the page) I never disputed that there was a discussion on reworking the criteria.  What there was not was any discussion on adding MOS:PERTINANCE to the criteria.  There was not even any discussion on images, or criterion 6b generally for that matter.  The link appears to have been added unilaterally by the copyeditor as a helpful link, not as any kind of extension of the criteria.  Anyway, thanks very much for reviewing, and thanks for being generous enough to pass the article even though you disagree with some of the content. SpinningSpark 13:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  RecycledPixels (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


### Second opinion
Nominator:  Spinningspark (talk · contribs)
Reviewer:  RecycledPixels (talk · contribs)
The nominator and the reviewer of this article for GA status have a disagreement of whether this article meets criteria 6b of the Good Article Criteria, and whether or not a failure to meet criteria 6b should prevent the article from being listed as a Good Article if the other criteria are met.  Please refer to the comments and the reviews above.  In short the reviewer feels that the inclusion of the photographs of two ships at the bottom of the article are not relevant to the article, and therefore falls short of the requirements of 6b.  The nominator of the article feels that the inclusion of the photographs is relevant due to the other ships being mentioned in the last section of the article.  This issue has been discussed, but the two parties continue to disagree.  A second opinion is requested. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been asked to provide a second opinion here. By way of background, I do image reviews at FAC, where a lot of articles about ships pass through; I would say it's not unusual to see images of other ships that are somehow related in these articles. On the other hand those articles tend to be quite a bit longer, providing more context to said images and also less weight. I can see a valid argument either for or against retention of these images as an editorial decision, but would not fail the GAN on this basis if the nominator chooses to retain them; they are not so obviously decorative to fail the less stringent GA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)