Talk:SS John Burke

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Buggie111 (talk · contribs) 22:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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.	*Fitting Out - fitting out while transporting its cargo of ammunition - could remove "its cargo of" Using the color-coded image at the left, The machinery space (dark blue) - The machinery space (dark blue in picture) When using any sort of unit, remember to use Template:Convert. An example of its use can be found here. Try to use past tense in the design section. and anything and everything that was needed for the war effort and could carry a large number of troops, when equipped to do so. - and other things needed for the war effort. They could also be equipped to carry troops. Burke had been in service for two years and four days, and had traveled tens of thousands of miles hauling untold tons of cargo. - remove, not extremely necessary, and kind of flowery Japanese Forces - Japanese forces "Then suddenly, a huge pillar of fire shot skyward, followed by an immense cloud of white smoke. Then suddenly, a huge pillar of fire shot out of Burke's cargo hold, followed by an immense cloud of white smoke." - accidentally forgot to remove the old sentence when you revised it, or did two pillars of fire sprout up from the John Burke? If so, I suggest trying to find a substitute for "Then suddenly," and specify in the first sentence where the pillar was sprouting from. "October 1944 invasion force on the island of Mindoro" - link to the invasion article? "Today the fragments lay" - "Today the fragments lie" Armed Guards - Armed guards
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	*Might wanna consider removing the Aftermath header, see this as an example.
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.	*Why is the "Liberty Ship Resources" section listed? None seem to be used in the article. More printed sources would be nice (but I understand that it's a somewhat obscure topic, and that not that many books would be available) (11/13/2012: These sources probably should be incorporated into the article) Source 8 doesn't seem to back up what is cited in the article. (11/12/2012: Use Source 14 instead for the second cite?) *Source 10 doesn't back up what is cited in the article (Source 11, however, does back up what is attributed to Source 10). Sources 12 and 13 only backup the ship's complement (40 MM, 28 AG), not the fact that "the shock wave rocked the whole convoy..." (Source 14, however, does). Also, Source 13 gives 29 AG, while Source 12 gives 28. (11/12/2012: use Source 14) Source 14 does not state that the convoy made it to Mindoro. (11/12/2012: Unaddressed) *Source 2 does not back up the fact about Eric Wickman's company obtaining Burke under charter. Source 14 gives the explosion at 1020 hours, while Source 4 gives it at 1013 hours (above my margin of error). Choose one (I'd go with 14). Use Template:Cite Web in your Bibliography section.
	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).	*Very few citations in the "History" section. Numbers in infobox should be cited (consider using Source 11)
	2c. it contains no original research.	*"surprised at finding it without the expected air cover" - Probably correct, but we don't know for sure. Pilot didn't leave any last second thoughts behind, did he? "Japanese Forces were alerted to the convoy's arrival shortly before daybreak on December 28th and quickly realized that if it could be destroyed, the U.S. forces on Mindoro would be essentially cut off from their supply line." - Once again, how do we know they didn't just say "Let's go and blow up some ships for the heck of it.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	*Anything else possible on the history section?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	*Lead caption doesn't need attribution listed. "Ship at sea" might warrant some specification as to which ship at sea it was, why a picture of Burke isn't available... Alt's need some reworking. People who are reading about Liberty ships for the first time won't find much help from the "Ship at Sea" alt or compartment alt. I'd suggest "A colored diagram of compartments on a ship" for the compartment picture and am unsure about the Ship at Sea picture. Try to describe the color of the image, size of the ship, which way it's facing...
	7. Overall assessment.	Lots of stuff that needs working on. I'll give you an extra week of fixing time (3 weeks total). If most of this isn't fixed by then, I'll have to fail this nomination. I'll also try to fix some of the smaller grammatical errors soon. Buggie111 (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Majority of this has been addressed. Pass. Buggie111 (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Re Item 2a, referencing list # 12, 13, 14, etc. I have individualized the entries in Bush's log, specifying which log entry applies to each reference.

Buster40004 Talk 01:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on SS John Burke. 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/20140714231330/http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/4emergencylarge/wwtwo/koregon.htm to http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/4emergencylarge/wwtwo/koregon.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120619082548/http://www.liberty-ship.com/html/vtour/cargoholds.php to http://www.liberty-ship.com/html/vtour/cargoholds.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103163035/http://shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/4emergencylarge/wwtwo/koregon.htm to http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/4emergencylarge/wwtwo/koregon.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) 07:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Video

I don't have any other information about the video of the Burke's destruction. I think it's fair to assume the video was shot by U.S. military personnel and so would be in the public domain [1] Rklawton (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)