Talk:SS El Sol

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SS El Sol/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 couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the lead, you say twice that the ship was built in 1910.
     • Removed the second.
   • In the first paragraph of the "World War I" section, you say "Typically, this meant". Why typically?
     • I have sources that indicate other ships were converted this way, but nothing specific about how this ship was converted. What would be a better way of phrasing it to convey that information?
       • Hmmm... How about something along the lines of "Although there is no information about the specific conversion of the El Sol, for other ships this typically meant..."?
         • Sounds good. I've changed it.
   • In the lead, you say that "The ship's cargo was salvaged" (making it sound like it was all salvaged), but in the "Postwar civilian service" section you say that only about 35% of the cargo was salvaged. Could you please clarify the lead?
     • From the source, the salvage operation was clearly ongoing and only 35% had been salvaged as of that date. I added that it was a portion of the cargo in the lead. Do you think it need further clarification?
       • No, this is good. It was just that the lead made it sound like all of the cargo had been salvaged, while the body was saying that only a third had been...it just didn't really match up. It works now.
   • In the "Postwar civilian service" section you say that "The hulk of El Sol was scrapped at a later date.". Do you know what this date was? Even approximately?
     • I checked the source and it said "in collision and scrapped 1927", so I added that it was scrapped later in 1927.

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:

I continue to enjoy reading and reviewing your articles - keep up the good work! I'm putting the article on hold to allow you time to address the few minor concerns above. Dana boomer (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Replies above —— Bellhalla (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this is sort of like a real-time GA review. Cool. — Bellhalla (talk)!~

Definitely cool :) Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. I see that you have some more ships farther down the GA list, so I'll probably circle around to those in a couple of days unless someone else beats me to them. Keep up the great writing and fast production of solid GAs! Dana boomer (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)