Talk:SS Dakotan

Date linking style

The Manual of Style no longer requires date linking, so I would like to propose that this article switch to the cleaner unlinked date style. I have boldly made the change, but feel free to revert and discuss here. (Note that linking single years or years in a month–year combo is discouraged under the date linking system, so I have removed those in a separate edit.) — Bellhalla (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be doing the GA review for this article, and I should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • There has been an anon IP edit since you last edited that changed a couple of things. Since this is not my area of expertise, I'm not sure if this is a good change or vandalism, so you may want to check this.
   • In the lead, is there a reason for "(or Зырянин in Cyrillic)." being bolded?
     • Reply for first two items: The anon changed the spelling in Cyrillic, which I would assume is more correct than my google transliteration, but removed the format code for proper bold. I've fixed the formatting, but left the spelling, for now. I've also posted a question at WP:RUSSIA (here) for guidance on the correct spelling. (If it's like anything like Arabic-to-English where there are myriad ways of spelling it, I'll just leave it out, since it's not technically cited under a Cyrillic spelling.) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
   • In the World War I section, you have two one-sentence paragraphs. Can these be combined with the other paragraphs?
     • Done.
   • Is there no knowledge of what the final fate of the Dakotan was?
     • Nothing that definitely says it was scrapped, though it most likely was c. 1970.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Your reference formatting has me a little confused. It looks like some of the websites have their full text in-line, while others have short form inline and the full text in the bibliography. Same with journals. Is there a reason for this?
     • Generally if it's a printed work (journal article, book, etc., but NOT news articles) I cite using the form "Author, Work (if necessary to disambiguate), page number." and list the full details in the "Bibliography" section. For news articles, and web sites I use the appropriate {{cite}} family template with full details in the citation. The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, though I generally access the website from the Naval Historical Center (NHC), is primarily from the printed edition, so I treat it as a book. Other works from the NHC, like that in note 39 of SS Dakotan, have not appeared in printed form, so I treat them like I would any other website. (I noticed there were two websites that didn't follow this pattern (one of which was not cited) but have fixed them for consistency. I also added another book that was cited but accidentally omitted from the "Bibliography" section.) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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:

Another well-written and well-referenced article! I'm putting the article on hold to allow time to deal with/reply to the minor issues above. If you have any questions, let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for another considered review. (Other replies above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick responses, and the explanations on the Cyrillic spelling and the references. Everything looks good with the changes, so I'm passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Juts as an FYI, I received word of the correct spelling, with a link to a Russian-language page about the ship. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Slave Ship?

While serving in the far east, was the Dakotan among the ships used by to transport slave workers to the Magadan mines?68.111.71.197 (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

See Magadan (a port city) and Kolyma (the region) for details about the gold mining in the Gulag in the Russian far east. There are numerous sources in those two articles, and perhaps another editor can answer this question. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Note technique

For me, the use of <ref group=Note> along with a Note section containing {{Reflist|group=Note}}to create a separately numbered series of notes from the usual inline citations is interesting and worthy of attention, especially for veteran editors who may need the technique in other articles where explanatory footnotes are needed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Code Letters

This article makes no mention of the Code Letters used by Dakotan. Details of these can be found on the webpages linked from here. There was a worldwide change of Code Letters in 1934. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Just a couple of observations... The summary on the main page is excellent - it drew me in, certainly. But the lead in the article proper seems poor to me - the first paragraph appears to be a summary of the rest of the lead - is this necessary? I'm sure this cound be rearranged to better introduce the article. 194.205.143.129 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SS Dakotan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303191419/http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/2large/inactive/bethsparrowspoint.htm to http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/2large/inactive/bethsparrowspoint.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)