Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Ohioan (1914)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by User:SandyGeorgia 23:21, 22 November 2008 [1].

SS Ohioan (1914)[edit]

Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

I believe that this article meets the featured article requirements. It has passed a GA review and a Military History A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I found this an excellently-written and very interesting article. Karanacs (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Footnote 5 links to an entry on Hopemoor, a British vessel. Kablammo (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is the one you want. Kablammo (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that. Now fixed. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The sentence: "After a refit and loading cargo, Ohioan sailed for Saint-Nazaire, France,..." - Do you mean "After a refit and a load of cargo..."? or "...receiving a load of cargo"? Or is "loading cargo" one of those ship terms?
    • I changed it to "After a refit and taking on a load of cargo…" to make it more clear — Bellhalla (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also: "Upon her return to the United States on 5 December, Ohioan was selected for conversion to a troop transport and transferred from the NOTS to the Cruiser and Transport Force.[6] Before she could begin returning troops, Ohioan had to undergo conversion from a cargo and animal ship." - Seems like this is somewhat redundant with the repetition of "conversion".
I reworded it to avoid the conversion-conversion usage. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The article is very well written. I could only find the nit picks above, which do not prevent support. Everything else seems perfect. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. (My replies to each are interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Any way you can expand out DANFS in the short footnotes the first time you list it, so that folks know what it is later?
    • Will be happy to do, but not sure exactly what you mean. Do you mean that note 6 should have "Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS)" rather than just "DANFS"? Or something else? — Bellhalla (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, so that folks when they look at the short notes (the numbered ones) can figure out which bibiliography is meant. Probably just the first time DANFS is mentioned in the footnotes is fine to expand it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. I updated the {{cite DANFS}} template to allow for a "first" version of the short form and set the parameter in its first invocation. Can you take a look and see if that is satisfactory? — Bellhalla (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Internal and external links check out. I made a few minor changes and alphabetized the categories; other than that everything looks very good. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that the different category arrangement matters a great deal to me, but is category alphabetization an MOS thing? I've always done categories in sort of a taxonomical/chronological order… — Bellhalla (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, the only reason I do it is because on all the peer reviews I've had that PeerReviewer Bot says to alphabetize them; but I don't know where/if it's in the MoS. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, and I'm not 100% sure about this, shouldn't the lead have some footnotes? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary in the lead unless there is a controversial statement. In general, leads don't have to have footnotes. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't sure, but now I know something new. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LEADCITE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment
  • This doesn't make sense to me: "... so Ohioan's activities after the United States declared war on Germany in April 1917 are unknown. On 5 August 1918, the United States Navy acquired Ohioan from American-Hawaiian ...". Is the suggestion that the ship's activities between April 1917 and August 1918 are unknown? Or did the war end early for the US? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The activities between the declaration of war and the time the ship was taken into the U.S. Navy are unknown. Also, thank you for the copyedits you made, but I'm confused by one change you made. I thought poems were treated like short stories and quoted rather than italicized. Is that not right? — Bellhalla (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just checked. Seems to depend, bizarrely, on whether it's a long poem or a short poem. No idea how "long" or "short" are defined in this context though, or how long this particular poem is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found a version of it in Google book, and it's 15 lines long, which I would put in the 'short' category, regardless of how one defines 'long' for a poem. (I also found that I had the name of the poem wrong: It's "In Tempest's Tavern" not "In Tempest Tavern". Now corrected.) — Bellhalla (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fifteen lines does sound a little on the short side, I agree. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 18 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SS_Ohioan_(1914)&oldid=1084313686"