Talk:USS Bridgeport (AD-10)/Good article nomination

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

On hold - comments below. GA passed. —Rob (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "The outbreak of war in Europe in the summer of 1914 found Breslau far from home..." -- this is where I need to read more ship articles, but while the personification of ships is common on Wikipedia, this might be taking it a bit far. Also, I don't know what "Mk. II" and "Mk. III" mean, so either describe or wiki as necessary. The redlinks for 5" caliber guns probably should revert to plaintext. Some dates need non-breaking spaces.

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.:

   Have the edits from 25-Feb thru 27-Feb affected the article substantially?

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:

Good read overall. —Rob (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence that carried the personification too far, since it was the crew who put the ship into port rather than the ship herself.

• Mk. II or III refer to the specific "Mark" or version of the weapon, but in neither case in the article was it necesary. For the "…Mk.III "automatic machine rifle"…" to Lewis Gun and eliminated the "Mk.II" from the depth charges.
• I also delinked the 5-inch guns and reworded for better flow.
• Which dates need non-breaking spaces? And, is this an MOS thing? I'd like to know for future GA and (I hope) FA candidacies.  Done

The edits of 25 to 27 February were based on some feedback from WP:MILHIST, and primarily consisted of:

• A "History" subhead was removed and its subheads were promoted
• Each paragraph was cited, rather than whole sections
• Some more specific dates for the ship’s initial launch, and dates it sailed on its various routes were added
• Two categories reflecting its early use as a German passenger liner were added.

Thanks — Bellhalla (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.