Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Siboney (ID-2999)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:14, 12 April 2008.

USS Siboney (ID-2999)[edit]

Self nomination. I believe that this article meets FA criteria. It has had a WP:MILHIST peer review (here), a successful GA review (here), and a successful MILHIST A-class review (here). — Bellhalla (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

~~Check the placement on the last pictures, it's floating over the references on my monitor. (I can still sorta read them but...)~~
The Road to France link shows up dead on the link tool, but worked fine for me. Just an FYI
I'm assuming that http://www.wardline.com/page/page/4557563.htm is considered a reliable source since it passed a MILHIST review.

All other sources look good, and the links check out with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{-}} before the "References" section. Did that help? — Bellhalla (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it! Thanks.

Comments

I fixed a redundant 'was raided by'

Thanks. Good catch.

I'm not keen on using abbreviations at the first mention, for example: Comdr. We know it stands for Commander but others may not without having to follow the link. Also, Bethlehem Steel Co. should be Bethlehem Steel Company.

I expanded "Comdr." (which leaves a less-than-ideal "Commander … in command", unfortunately), and I expanded to "Bethlehem Steel Company" at first mention and shortened to "Bethlehem Steel" on the second mention.

Yes but a Commander does command and a refrigerator, refrigerates etc.

Another great ship article all around! --Brad (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(My replies interspersed. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Support Thanks --Brad (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"She was the sister ship of USS Orizaba (ID-1536) but the two were not part of a ship class."—not "the two were", but "neither was".

Fixed.

"New York–Cuba–Spain"—Blue, black, blue; frankly, why do we need to link two of these? Same with "Mexico" below. Looks silly. Save the links for "Lisbon" below, sure.

Good point. I've delinked all.

Caption: "The first of two lifeboats from torpedoed British transport SS Dwinsk to be rescued by Siboney on 21 June 1918."—This is just a nominal group, so MOS requires no final period.

Argh. I thought I'd checked that. Good catch. Fixed.

"United Kingdom" linked multiple times? Hello? It's such an obscure entity.

It's the forest-for-the-trees, man. I left the link in the lead and de-linked one in the "World War II Army service" section. Were there more than just the two links I found? (I didn't count British ensign, which links to something else.)

Pity there's such a heavy reliance on the NYT; no other newspapers reported this information? Tony (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the New York/New Jersey area was usually one of its termini, the ship tended to get reported on more there, especially the 'fun' stuff like the liquor busts and the like. I'm sure it would have had equal coverage in Havana, for example, but not having access to news archives there (and that pesky, not-speaking-Spanish thing) limits what's available.

Thanks for taking the time to review. (Other comments interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Any qualms I had with this article were taken care of above. Well done again Bellhalla! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Should "she soon renamed after" be "she was soon renamed after"? The latter flows better to me. Otherwise, an exceptional piece of work. Well sourced, images licensed correctly, prose flows well enough. Meets all the FA criteria. Woody (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely it should, and absolutely it does. Now fixed. (I can't tell you how many times I've read and re-read that lead section and I never noticed that at all.) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image layout: per WP:MOS#Images, don't sandwich text between images, there are two images in the "World War I Navy service" section that are sandwiching text between the images and the infobox. Can those images be moved to later sections? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.