Talk:SS Irish Oak (1919)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will start tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow never comes!

Mjroots (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying out a WP:GAN review can involve considerable effort on behalf of the reviewer (and the nominator(s)), yet may nominators don't have the courtesy to even to add a thank you (in any form or shape). You fall in that group, having completed the review of Hawkhurst Branch Line on 12 March 2010. Since then I have completed another three GAN reviews. Two of the nominators, unlike you, did have the courtesy to acknowledge the review result; the third nominator is currently inactive; I also did an informal review for ClemMcGann: he could certainly provide you with some guidance on common courtesy. Incidentally, having completed over 200 reviews only two nominator's started getting abusive: the first had ambitions of being an Admin - then perhaps groupings have some "bad apples". Pyrotec (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that Mjroots is over-anxious rather than anything else. I have been on wikipedia for some time and have yet to have an article progressed. Perhaps I need Mjroots or Haus to prompt me into doing so. (I wrote the article, Haus first nominated it, Mjroots renominated it). I do appreciate the effort reviewers make. I confine myself to Irish Maritime History. It is an interest and I enjoy it. Reviewers, on the other hand, work across areas of knowledge and interest. I thank them all. Also thanks to Shir-El for the copy-edit. Now I will study Pyrotec's comments to see how it can be further improved. I value all constructive comment. The winner in this exercise will be Irish Maritime History, for that I thank you all. ClemMcGann (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The topic above has been resolved; and I don't not consider that we need to dwell on it. Pyrotec (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Construction & West Neris -

These are two rather "thin" sections, could they not be combined?
It would be nice to know "how" the ship was built, if that information is out there. It seems that the period in question is one in which welding plates together was taking over from riveting them together (shipbuilding in Britain, being conservative lagged behind).
Y Pyrotec (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC) - There is a discontinuity between the two sections: in the first section, West Neris, was not completed until December 1919, i.e. after the end of WWI. The 2nd section then states "After World War I, in 1921 she was leased to ...". Well Yes, its certainly after WWI, but there the wording is sufficiently ambiguous to suggest that the ship might have been employed in WWI.[reply]
Ref 4 does not appear to provide any verification of the statement that she was "she was leased to Bethlehem Steel for use as a floating repair yard".
Y Pyrotec (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC) - Section two states that the West Neris was sold to the Mississippi Steamship Company in 1933, yet ref 2, which is dated 1930-1, has the Mississippi Steamship Company down as the "Armatuers", not the USSB.[reply]

Irish Oak -
- Background-

Y Pyrotec (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC) - Ref 8 is a book, it should be properly referenced.[reply]

First response to initial comment

I have little information on her pre-Irish Oak life. Much of this was added by other editors. However I will see what I can verify. WWI is a valid point. I'm inclined to rip out the floating repair yard piece, it is irrelevant to the main story. Ref 8 is for the text of the Neutrality Act, excluding US ships from the war zone, it should be easy to get an alternative ref. - regards - ClemMcGann (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not objecting to the use of ref 8, I'm merely objecting to its description. It's currently a link to google books, with the publisher, isbn and page number added. As it is a book the names of the authors should be provided. The publisher and the isbn have been given; but the copyright is held by the authors and they, uniquely in this article, are not listed. Pyrotec (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

author & editor added. also ownership sequence added from Spong's Irish Shipping ClemMcGann (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re the Mississippi Steamship Company, I suspect that Spong is in error (a first in my experience). the Mississippi Steamship Company must have leased rather than purchased. I'll seek another authority. ClemMcGann (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lease = chartered? Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Neris - Armateurs is French, it translates as ship owners. Where a ship is chartered, Lloyd's register lists the charterer as owner.

I've done a few minor MOS changes, added a few wikilinks and referenced an unsourced paragraph (MV Irish Oak). Mjroots (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text now matches the references, but the summary table needs updating particularly dates of ownership. Pyrotec (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done (I hope!) ClemMcGann (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is it worth adding some pics, I have pics of some of the other ships mentioned: Glencullen, Glencree, Luimneach etc.? ClemMcGann (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we ought to keep any photos relevant to the article - Storness, U-607, possibly U-650, Eric Jones would be candidates here. A wealth of images is not a requirement for GA or even FA status. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll forget it then. ClemMcGann (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive and well-referenced article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well-referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well-referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on acheiving the necessary standards. Pyrotec (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrations and thanks to all who helped to get this far, now I'm returning to Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II ClemMcGann (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]