Talk:SS Czar/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GAN, and should have the full review up soon. Skinny87 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
'attacked and defeated a well-armed convoy' - I don't think 'well-armed' is needed there.
??
'The liner was built in Glasgow for the Russian American Line in 1912 and she sailed on North Atlantic routes from Libau to New York.' - don't need the 'she' really
Removed

'The ship was returned to the East Asiatic Company, the parent company of the Russian American Line' - when was this?
At the end of WWI. So added.

'who placed her on their Baltic American Line in New York service' - Maybe I'm being a tad thick, but could you clarify what 'New York Service' means please?
Meaning roundtrip passenger service to New York. Clarified in the article.
8'Ocean liner SS Czar was launched 23 March 1912 by Barclay, Curle & Company of Glasgow, Scotland,' - a bit staccatto, needs 'on' before the date and 'by' before the company name
Added on. Where does by need to go?

'sailed opposite various combinations ' - what does this mean?
All of those ships sailed on the the same route, but not necessarily at the same time. What would be a better way of wording it so that is more understandable?

'In March 1914, King George V of the United Kingdom, on recommendation of the Board of Trade, awarded 19 of Czar's crew the Silver Sea Gallantry Medal, along with a £3 award' - was that £3 each or between them?
Each. Clarified in the article.

'After the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, Czar switched to service from Archangel to New York,[1] but ran only sporadically through 1916' - what was she doing in 1914/1915, did she run as sporadically then?
The ship sailed sporadically from 1914 through 1916.

'The British shipping controller initially placed the liner under the management of John Ellerman's Wilson Line, but was transferred to the Cunard Line management by the end of 1917' - 'but Czar was transferred to the Cunard Line management by the end of 1917'
Changed.

'Sources do not report when Czar returned to the United States, but had done so by early June.' - 'but she had done so by early June'
Changed.

'The convoy had a false alarm when a floating barrel was mistaken for submarine, but otherwise uneventfully arrived at Brest on the afternoon of 27 June' - 'for a submarine'
Fixed.

'Czar began what would be her final American trooping run' - trooping run doesn't sound right
Copy edited section to avoid that phrase.

'she began regular Libau – Danzig – Boston – New York service' - 'she began a regular...'
Changed.

'Four days later, joined Convoy SL-44' - add the name of the ship, please
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

An interesting article to read. Get those prose bits done, and add a citation, and it'll be a Good Article! Skinny87 (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I have replied to individual items above, but I did not understand the first item (Maybe it's from a different GA review?). Also, to what citation are you referring? — Bellhalla (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crikey, I am sorry. I copy and pasted another review into here and thought I deleted all the points, as I always get confused reusing the GA Review template. So the first point isn't relevant, and there are no citations to fix. I've looked through and you've answered all my questions - and the 'various combinations' makes sense now that I look at it again. So, I'll pass this as a GA, and I apologize again the confusion! Skinny87 (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that's what it might have been. Thanks again! — Bellhalla (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]