Talk:SS Czar

Within MILHIST scope?

This article was listed for assessment at WikiProject Military History which hhas resulted in discussions about whether or not this falls within the scope of the project. I'd like to get opinions from other editors on this. I've copied the section below from the assessment page. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Begin text copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment

• SS Czar, recently expanded. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this is within our scope - a civilian ocean liner (with civilian crew) which was chartered between 1946 and 1949 by the Minister of War, but still managed by a civilian company from Liverpool. Before i'll remove the WP:Milhist banner from its talk page I would like to see some opinions from my other colleagues. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • My rationale for including it in WP:MILHIST:
      • It served as HMT Czar during World War I, and was considered a part of the U.S. Navy's Cruiser and Transport Force during World War I.
      • It served as a Polish troopship at the beginning of World War II
      • It served as a British troopship from 1940 (not 1946) during World War II.
    • — Bellhalla (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it actually "served". Even when it was attached to the Cruiser and Transport Force, the ship was under civilian management. Would we include Boeing 747 within our project because its cargo versions are transporting troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? --Eurocopter (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

End copied text

---

Eurocopter, comparing this article to Boeing 747 is a false analogy. If I were advocating that ocean liner was within the scope of this project, you would have a valid comparison. So what do we do about a ship like SS Samuel Huntington, an American liberty ship sunk in World War II? It was owned by the United States Maritime Commission and run by a civilian crew under management of a civilian company and carried troops and supplies for the Allies before it was sunk in a German air attack. Did it really "serve"? Is it only within the purview of MILHIST by virtue of the fact that it was unlucky enough to be sunk? Or should it, too, be under consideration for removal? — Bellhalla (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll bite. For me, the trooping duties from WWII onwards clearly make it under the purview of the MILHIST project. It was designated HMT, and was used during the Second World War to help troops. The argument that it was still under civilian ownership is irrelevant in my view as many ships are during war time. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary are technically merchant ships, but they fall under the jurisdication of the Royal Navy and CINCFLEET. The same can be said here, they are civilian ships under military jurisdication, as such they should be included under the MILHIST project and already are. Consider SS Thistlegorm as well. The precedent is clearly there in my opinion. Woody (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not false analogy. For troops transport, governments used to charter ocean liners in those times, instead of chartering/leasing civilian airlines as in our days. SS Samuel Huntington was a ship owned by the United States Maritime Comission which was an institution of a Government directly involved in the war - also, the United States Maritime Comission was actually the US reserve naval auxiliary force. I would propose moving this discussion/adding a note to the main project talk page, in order to see additional opinions from my colleagues and other members. --Eurocopter (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually the same thing Woody, those two ships were both operated by Government institutions/agencies, while this one was operated by a private company - this is my point. --Eurocopter (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

However, this may fall within our scope as it was owned between 1946 and 1949 by the Minister of War. But, I still think that ships entirely own by private companies, which were chartering for different governments during wars, should not be included in our project. --Eurocopter (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GAN, and should have the full review up soon. Skinny87 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • 'attacked and defeated a well-armed convoy' - I don't think 'well-armed' is needed there.
     • ??

   'The liner was built in Glasgow for the Russian American Line in 1912 and she sailed on North Atlantic routes from Libau to New York.' - don't need the 'she' really

   Removed

   • 'The ship was returned to the East Asiatic Company, the parent company of the Russian American Line' - when was this?
     • At the end of WWI. So added.
   • 'who placed her on their Baltic American Line in New York service' - Maybe I'm being a tad thick, but could you clarify what 'New York Service' means please?
     • Meaning roundtrip passenger service to New York. Clarified in the article.

   8'Ocean liner SS Czar was launched 23 March 1912 by Barclay, Curle & Company of Glasgow, Scotland,' - a bit staccatto, needs 'on' before the date and 'by' before the company name

   Added on. Where does by need to go?

   • 'sailed opposite various combinations ' - what does this mean?
     • All of those ships sailed on the the same route, but not necessarily at the same time. What would be a better way of wording it so that is more understandable?
   • 'In March 1914, King George V of the United Kingdom, on recommendation of the Board of Trade, awarded 19 of Czar's crew the Silver Sea Gallantry Medal, along with a £3 award' - was that £3 each or between them?
     • Each. Clarified in the article.
   • 'After the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, Czar switched to service from Archangel to New York,[1] but ran only sporadically through 1916' - what was she doing in 1914/1915, did she run as sporadically then?
     • The ship sailed sporadically from 1914 through 1916.
   • 'The British shipping controller initially placed the liner under the management of John Ellerman's Wilson Line, but was transferred to the Cunard Line management by the end of 1917' - 'but Czar was transferred to the Cunard Line management by the end of 1917'
     • Changed.
   • 'Sources do not report when Czar returned to the United States, but had done so by early June.' - 'but she had done so by early June'
     • Changed.
   • 'The convoy had a false alarm when a floating barrel was mistaken for submarine, but otherwise uneventfully arrived at Brest on the afternoon of 27 June' - 'for a submarine'
     • Fixed.
   • 'Czar began what would be her final American trooping run' - trooping run doesn't sound right
     • Copy edited section to avoid that phrase.
   • 'she began regular Libau – Danzig – Boston – New York service' - 'she began a regular...'
     • Changed.
   • 'Four days later, joined Convoy SL-44' - add the name of the ship, please

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

An interesting article to read. Get those prose bits done, and add a citation, and it'll be a Good Article! Skinny87 (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I have replied to individual items above, but I did not understand the first item (Maybe it's from a different GA review?). Also, to what citation are you referring? — Bellhalla (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh crikey, I am sorry. I copy and pasted another review into here and thought I deleted all the points, as I always get confused reusing the GA Review template. So the first point isn't relevant, and there are no citations to fix. I've looked through and you've answered all my questions - and the 'various combinations' makes sense now that I look at it again. So, I'll pass this as a GA, and I apologize again the confusion! Skinny87 (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I figured that's what it might have been. Thanks again! — Bellhalla (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)