Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SS Black Osprey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article has passed a GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments A generally well-written article. I focus here on a number of prose issues:
- Watch redudancies throughout prose. Here is one example: The ship was inspected by the United States Navy for possible use as USS West Arrow (ID-2585) but was
neithernot taken into the Navynororevercommissionedunder that name- Since USS West Arrow (ID-2585) is a redirect to the article, I was trying to make clear that though that would have been the ship's name, she was never officially known by that name. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try to simplify sentences, such as this one: After the United States established a "Neutrality Zone"—a zone where American-flagged ships could not enter—in late 1939, American Diamond was unable to use Black Osprey or any of the other seven vessels used on its Dutch route, and chartered the ships to other U.S. companies.
- Sentence split into two sentences now. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- West Arrow was inspected by the 13th Naval District of the United States Navy
after completionandwasassignedtheidentification numberof2585- Well, the ship was inspected after completion. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch redudancies throughout prose. Here is one example: The ship was inspected by the United States Navy for possible use as USS West Arrow (ID-2585) but was
That's about all I have this morning, I'll try and return. Good work. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My replies are interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I corrected a minor redundancy. Do you think the article would be too short for FA? --Brad (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for catching that. (D'oh!) I don't think the length would necessarily be a problem with an FA. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as normal more than deserves A-class. Joe (Talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I couldn't see any issues. The length is good, I have seen smaller FAs. It seems comprehensive and that is all that matters. Good work. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.