Jump to content

Talk:SS Czar/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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)
  1. 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
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. 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]