Talk:SS Kommandøren

SS Kommandøren has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 30, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Military history: Maritime / European / Nordic / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	Nordic military history task force
	World War II task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Norway

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from SS Kommandøren appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 April 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Norwegian steamer Kommandøren was torpedoed and sunk by a drunken crewman on a German E-boat?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SS Kommandøren.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SS Kommandøren/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 10:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get started on this one shortly. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	ok
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	ok
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	OK
	2c. it contains no original research.	OK
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	OK
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	OK
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	OK
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	OK
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	OK
	7. Overall assessment.	comments addressed

Comments

I will run through a quick c/e first, then make some specific comments.
not sure why Union between Sweden and Norway is not linked to Norway in the lead and Construction and characteristics sections, it appears to have been avoided by using a link to Western Norway. Can you clarify?
'and wounded a 16-year-old local boy, the boy's mother, restaurateur Isak Roksvåg from Kommandøren' - it is not clear if Isak Roksvåg was the boy's mother. If not, perhaps 'and wounded a 16-year-old local boy and his mother, the restaurateur Isak Roksvåg from Kommandøren'?
the size of the subsubsections in the Second World War section are really too small to justify. Suggest you just keep the subsection headings.
c/e done. Once the above comments have been addressed this looks good to go. Well done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to comments

Hi, thanks for the very good copy-edit. I appreciate it. Thank you also for undertaking this review.
Well, I never really thought of linking to the union, so I haven't really tried to avoid it. This really is a ship that served in a regional context, and because of that I felt the Western Norway link worked well. As for the union, there's not much of a point in linking to that, seeing as that was a personal union between two countries, Norway and Sweden. There was never a Sweden-Norway/Norway-Sweden. The union was one of a common king and a common foreign policy, everything else was separate, including shipping. Hope that explains things. That did, however, remind me of the flag Kommandøren flew for the first eight years of her life. Thanks.
Well pointed out. Fixed it. Thank you.
You mean replacing the "==" with just bolding? That could be done. Would it be enough to remove the subsections from the Norwegian Campaign bit, or should all of them go? Manxruler (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no I mean just remove those headings and only have two. Not an obstacle to GA though. Passed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll look into removing some subsections, you are right with regards to there being a bit too many of them. Thanks for the review. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]