Talk:USS West Gate

Huh?

This paragraph confuses me:

At 02:28 on 7 October, while about 250 nautical miles (460 km) south of Halifax,[6] West Gate's steering gear engine jammed, sending the ship veering sharply to the port. The crew put the ship's engines at half speed to try to drop out of the convoy. Lieutenant Spencer, the chief engineer, and his assistant, Lieutenant (j.g.) Hillery, headed to the machinery spaces to see about effecting repairs. At 02:30, men on the bridge sighted the red light from the oncoming American, which had been steaming behind and to the port of West Gate. Though the bridge ordered the engines raised to "full speed ahead" to avoid the collision, there was no time for the engines to respond before American's bow cut into the starboard side of West Gate, near the poop deck.[3][7]

It looks so sweet and innocent, right? Except for this: how does a ship turning to port (LEFT) get hit on its starboard (RIGHT) side by a ship that was coming up from behind/LEFT of it...? (left because the ship was turning...) Cheers! —the_ed17— 05:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That thought had occurred to me as well. It's possible (but doesn't seem likely given the time frame) that West Gate had circled about 3/4 of a turn. The main source says American was behind, but didn't necessarily say immediately behind. And the source also says that the ships were having trouble maintaining stations in the 'dark and stormy night'. Throw in some zig-zagging, which was used in WWI convoys, and you potentially have the situation above... and confusion. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Still, that seems improbable, but I guess that there are no other sources....whatever. =) Cheers! —the_ed17— 19:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS West Gate (ID-3216)/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 status, and I should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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:

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Nice job, and drop me a note if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)