Talk:SS Jacona (1918)

SS Jacona (1918) was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 28, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed
February 26, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 8, 2016.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the SS Jacona was the world's first seagoing electric generator powership?

Current status: Delisted good article

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electrical engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Other Jacona (1889), sunk by mine 12 August 1915[edit]

The 1918 title date was added with the comment that there was another notable ship of the same name. Lloyd's Register 1913 has details. That ship struck a mine and sank 12 August 1915 and is listed in List of shipwrecks for 12 August 1915. Palmeira (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completion to lay-up probable[edit]

Many of the ships completed just before or after the Armistace in 1919 went almost directly into lay-up — or as with the wooden ships directly into layup before being burnt such as those at Mallows Bay. Though the ship remained in registry as a USSB owned hull there is so far (Nov. 2021) no sign of any significant commercial service. There is now a definite mention of the ship being laid up in the James River when selected for conversion in 1930. As a technical note, after that conversion the vessel was not a "ship" but a "barge" with no motive power. Palmeira (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible 1920 use as food relief ship is found as a footnote in The American Jewish Year Book covering events from September 25, 1919 to September September 12, 1920: "As we go to press we learn that a cargo of food and clothing valued at $200,000 is on its way to Roumania per S.S. Jacona, and that the S.S. Ashbum is carrying a cargo of meat, valued at $250,000, to Poland." Palmeira (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:SS Jacona (1918)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 04:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'll be reviewing this nomination in the coming days. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience, I've left my comments/concerns and I'll place the nomination on hold for you to address them. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions have been addressed, so I'm happy to pass this article as a GA! Well done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lead/infobox[edit]

Date ranges in infobox (e.g. "1930—1945") should use en dash (–) instead of (—)
link World War I
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"deck machinery, and converted to a non-self-propelled" → add bolded word and remove comma
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"until March 1945 delivery to the War Shipping Administration." → a word is missing here
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reads better to me if there's a comma after "In 1930" and "In 1971".
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

link World War II
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Issues Done. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One additional note for the lead: in order to make the lead agree with the body of the article, clarify that she was sold to buyers in the Philippines, rather than just saying "she was sold to the Philippines", which could imply she was sold to the government or some depiction of the country itself as an entity.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

As built[edit]

The comma after "Board" in the first sentence reads as unnecessary to me.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps add a few words to the final sentence to read "when it was selected for conversion"
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1930 conversion...[edit]

Did Wyman develop this idea shortly before the Jacona was converted or had this idea been around for a while but hadn't been acted upon?
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"with the New England Public Service Company for sale of Jacona for $25,000." → "for the sale of Jacona"
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Ship's crew quarters were left to house personnel operating the plant." → This reads better to me if the sentence started "The ship's crew quarters..."
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gross register tonnage and Net register tonnage are linked in the previous section and therefore do not need to be linked again.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk)

add comma after "By 1934"
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the vessel is out of registry as a ship and listed as 'abandoned'" → the present tense here sounds awkward for something that took place ninety years ago.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History as floating power plant[edit]

add comma after "After conversion"
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk)

you could probably get away with just saying "The plant was towed by a tug to Bucksport to be..." since you identify Bucksport as being in Maine in the sentence before.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"kilowatt-hours" is hyphenated in the first paragraph but is unhyphenated in the third.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The plant's availability had been 90% with one with one unit and 85% with both generating sets." → repetition
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

add comma after "March 17, 1945..."
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

since War Shipping Administration is only previously linked in the lead, I think it'd be okay to link it here
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the unit "kilowatt" is written out in full in previous paragraphs but is abbreviated "KW" in the second-to-last paragraph of the section
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

add comma after "In 1947"
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Korea service[edit]

"On one day in 1950..." → add bolded word and comma after "1950"
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the word "accidentally" is needed here as it would be difficult to imagine a rat short circuiting a generator on purpose.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the loss of electricity that was generated by the first generator." → I would find a word to replace "generated" to cut down on repetition.

The abbreviation "US" is used in the final paragraph (without periods) while "U.S." is used in other parts of the article; I'd change one of these to be consistent with the others.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link Economic Cooperation Administration
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

same issue with consistency among "kilowatt"/"kW"/"KW"
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Later service[edit]

Might not be 100% necessary but I think it would be potentially helpful for readers to link the Philippines.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and references[edit]

Notes A and C need citations.
Done Removed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor typo in the first word of note C.
Done Removed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References and sources look good to me.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig gives a score of 13%, so no issues with copyvio.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

File:SS Jacona 1919.jpg – relevant to subject matter; valid license Y
File:REPC Power Plant Ship Jacona.JPG – relevant to subject matter; valid license Y

Comments[edit]

- @PCN02WPS: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment[edit]

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]