Talk:USS West Bridge

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS West Bridge (ID-2888)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • For an article of this length, the lead should be two solid paragraphs.
     • Not sure what happened here. I work in an offline text editor and must not have saved the expanded lead section. I'll rewrite it and note here when it's been added. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
       • The lead has now been expanded. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
   • In the "Torpedo attack" section, second paragraph: Is there any more information on the female stowaways that were discovered? Why they were there, etc?
     • Regrettably, no. The only mention of them is in the DANFS entry. No mention even in the erroneous news reports of the sinking. (Omitting such potentially salacious details? For shame!) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
       • That's too bad that there's no further info...it would be interesting to add :) Oh well, it's not a huge detail - but if you ever do come across the info, be sure to add it is!

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • You have the Montana DANFS article listed in the Bibliography, but not used for references.
   • The first paragraph of the "Military career" section has a note, but no reference.
     • Both oversights and both corrected. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:26, 5 September 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:

Nice article! Just a few minor issues, so I'm putting the article on hold to allow you time to deal with them. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Replies above. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead has now been expanded. In addition, I combined the single, short paragraph of the ship's Soviet career with the previous section and retitled it "World War II and later career". If you have any objections about this change, I'll be happy to change back. Thanks again for another review. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks done, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Keep up the good work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS West Bridge (ID-2888). 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/20111010150034/http://shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/4emergencylarge/wwone/duthie.htm to http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/4emergencylarge/wwone/duthie.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) 18:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Paint scheme/Disguise

After looking at the photo of the USS West Bridge on the page I looked through the article to find a discussion or explanation of the design of the paint scheme. I could not find anything. Is this paint scheme used for camouflage in the ocean? I recall seeing ships that have used this idea to break up their image so they are harder to see in the ocean. There may be another page about this for ships, and if there is then it could be linked to, but if this is not the reason for the paint scheme of this ship then it would not make sense to go down that route. I thought I could inquire here. Djgriffin7 (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

→Dont know the naswer to your question, but You are referring to dazzle camouflage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage 79.182.31.73 (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)