Talk:Mutiny of the Matoika

Mutiny of the Matoika has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 24, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
December 18, 2008	Good topic candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Good article

Olympics Low‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics 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.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

A summary of this article appears in USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mutiny of the Matoika/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

So Mutiny is just a common name for the event, which technically wasn't a mutiny? The lead might need some clarification/expansion on what exactly happened (unless the limit of what happened is they commented angrily to the AOC).
- Added a little bit about not being a real mutiny to the lead. Does that read all right? — Bellhalla (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Background section image should go in the top right corner instead.
- Moved. Since it's now a lead image, I set it to 300 pixels. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The ship chosen, Princess Matoika..." - the way this is written would imply that you've already said something about another ship being chosen.... you haven't. Basically context is needed.
- The previous paragraph mentions the ship USAT Northern Pacific being declared unseaworthy by the U.S. Army. Does this need more context than that? — Bellhalla (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nah, it's OK now. —Giggy 23:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the stuff in the References sections should be in (relatively) small print (I haven't seen any article do that in that context).
- This was a spinoff article from USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290) which had a *long* list of references; I had chosen the smaller size for that article just to save space. I agree that here, the list of references isn't that long and doesn't really need the smaller size. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the sprinters and hurdlers were provided only a 70-yard (64 m) cork track on which to practice" - should probably note that they run 100m at least in their races.
- good suggestion — Bellhalla (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
""everything possible to improve conditions"" - this quote needs a reference.
- added — Bellhalla (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the lot - interesting read, so thanks for that! Please leave me a note when done with this. —Giggy 10:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water tank photo

There is no linked photo. It’s either a broken link or mis-direction. ProulxMike (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.

Cheers, —Giggy 23:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then what?

We get to the list of demands and to whom they were circulated, and then the article skips ahead to some point "after the Olympics were over", avoiding entirely what happened when the demands were made. Were they met? Were the complainers removed from the team? Any apologies? Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the Talk page to ask the exact same thing. 97.102.30.205 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]