Talk:SS George Washington

Merge proposal

I'm proposing that three article on the same ship—SS George Washington, USS George Washington (1908), and USS Catlin (AP-19)—be merged into one article. (The latter two are essentially the same DANFS text.) The Catlin name is clearly less notable than the George Washington name. The ship's career before and after World War I under the name SS George Washington was equally notable but considerably longer than her career as USS George Washington, so I am proposing that all three be combined into SS George Washington. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's always the best thing to do when you have 3 articles basically on the same subject and I would agree with the merge. --Brad (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting

Does anyone have any objections to not using date autoformatting (i.e., linking dates) for this article? I have taken the liberty of removing the date links, which are no longer required or encouraged under the Manual of Style. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be doing the GA review for this article, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • An article of this length should have a lead that is at least two very full paragraphs, and preferably three solid paragraphs.
     • Will expand and note here when done.
       • Lead now expanded to four paragraphs. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
   • In the "Design and construction" section, you say "estimated to weigh nearly twice as much as the British battleship Dreadnought." Which was how much?
     • Ship weights are one of those funny areas. I've since found that displacement is basically equal to weight, so, in effect, GW's displacement was twice that of Dreadnought. I've now reworded.
   • In the "Notable passengers" section, you say "mid November to see Billie Burke's in the New York premiere of his play". Shouldn't this just be "Billie Burke"?
     • Yes it should.
   • In the "World War I" section, you say "support of the A.E.F.". Acronyms should be spelt out the first time they are used, even if they are wikilinked.
     • Done.
   • In the "World War II section, you say "During a 10-day journey as one of four transports in an eleven-ship convoy transporting troops of the U.S. 100th Infantry Division from New York City to Marseille, France, in October 1944, she encountered a hurricane for 48 hours beginning on 12 October during which the rudder needed repair." This sentence is rather long and hard to read. Could it be split into two sentences? Also, did the rudder need repair due to the hurricane, or did it need repair from something else and the repair was made harder by the hurricane, or something else altogether?
     • I'm not sure of the source of that sentence, which was added by another editor. I've commented it out until it can be properly sourced.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • The last sentence of the third paragraph of the "World War II" section needs a reference.
     • See reply above
   • Is there a reason that the DANFS template is included at the end of the "World War II" section, as opposed to the Bibliography section as I believe is usual? Also, since you have this source cited in the references section, do you need to have this template? I'm not sure of all the ins-and-outs of policy on this one, but I don't believe I've seen you use the template before on articles where you have this souce as an in-line cite.
     • This article (most of "World War I" on) uses public domain text from the DANFS article, which requires the template. I personally think it is sufficient to have the public domain text notice in the references section but there is a certain editor that thinks it's too small in that section. My ultimate goal is to have the DANFS text sufficiently rewritten to avoid the need for the public domain notice.
       • My thought would be that if you already have the section referenced to DANFS, you don't need to have the template any other place than the references. If I'm backing you up on this, do you think the other editor would give you problems for moving it? If so, just leave it where it is - I certainly won't fail the GA for this - but I would really prefer to have the template in the references section.
         • I moved it. We shall see… — Bellhalla (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
   • Ref #36 (from the images) is formatted oddly. Could you simply link to the commons image, rather than having only the image name and caption?
     • Done.

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):

   • Is the gallery in the "The Hatchet newspaper" section necessary? It seems to me like one or another of these images would be enough; the multiple images don't really add anything to the reader's knowledge (in my opinion), and WP discourages galleries unless they do add something.
     • The gallery was added by another editor, and my initial reaction was the same as yours, but I didn't want to be that editor and remove it without having any other opinions on it. I've taken it down to one image.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, a nice article, but with a few issues regarding prose, MOS, references and images. I am putting this article on hold to allow you time to deal with these concerns. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. So, we're just waiting for the lead expansion and I'll pass the article. Please also see my reply about the DANFS notification above. Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

New replies above. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the WW1 voyages of SS George Washington

G. W. Garlock (then commander of the US Army 32nd Division, 128th Company) describes in his 1927 book "Tales of the Thirty Second" that "most" of the AEF 32nd Division left New York Feb 19, 1918 with troop transports including the "George Washington, Grant, Covington, Susquehanna and Pastores", and also "Manchuria" loaded with munitions, with armed escort that included the battleship "Huntington" and joined while under way by "DeKalb". He arrives in Brest, France on March the 4th, 1918. This caused me some confusion, since the USS Martha Washington (not to be confused with the SS George Washington) was also a troop transport in the same service, also moving troops of the 32nd Division in a separate convoy, but departing New York nine days earlier.