Talk:USS West Alsek/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I am going to be doing the GA review for this article, and I should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
In the "Design and construction" section, you say " built by the Skinner & Eddy of Seattle, Washington.[1][Note 1]". Should this be "built by the Skinner & Eddy shipyard", or "built by Skinner & Eddy"?
I originally had "Skinner and Eddy Corpoation", hence the extra the. Now removed.

In the "Military career" section, you say "other surviving ships of the convoy and arrived at Verdon-sur-mer". Is there supposed be something before "and arrived"?
It was missing a "continued on"

Same section, you say "After unloading her cargo of flour and her return to the United States,". Perhaps, "cargo of flour and returning to the..."?
Better option. Changed.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I see the DANFS article on the Montanan listed in the bibliography section, but not in the references section. Am I missing something?
Just an oversight after I went with a different source.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Another well-written article! I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to deal with the few minor quibbles above. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]