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)

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)

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)

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)

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