Talk:SS Eurana/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Trains2050 (talk · contribs) 05:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Greetings! I will be reviewing this article over the next few days, I will be reading the article carefully and will get back to you. My first impression is that it's a good article but might need some minor improvements. Looking forward to reading this article. Trains2050 (talk)

Infobox and lede

• When it mentions "when she was requisitioned by the United States Navy to serve as a transport during World War I." do you mean "transport ship during World War I". Can you make it a bit clearer?
• "she was hit by several bombs and was subsequently scuttled." Can you use a word clearer than scuttled?
• Maybe put the ship capacity for military personnel/crew on the infobox? (optional not required)
  • I usually try to avoid doing this because the actual number is all over the place.
    • Makes sense. Trains2050 (talk)

Design and construction

• It mentions it was ordered in early 1915, do you have a specific month or even better date? surely there is something out there?
  • Annette Rolph was ordered, but Eurana was built by Union Ironworks on their own decision as speculation. So there is no order date.

Operational history

• "Eurana was chartered by Sperry Flour Co. to transport a large cargo of flour to Europe." Europe is big, can you mention what country or even what part of Europe? North, south, west, east?
  • It says a couple of sentences further that she went to France.
    • Thanks, that's fine Trains2050 (talk)
• "Eurana tried to come to the help of schooner Centralia beaten up by storms, but in the dark and very foggy weather, she could not find the distressed vessel." This line should be much clearer.
  • Could you please clarify what's is unclear?
    • Sorry was just trying to read this at 5am in the morning and just could not understand but after re-reading it, seems better Trains2050 (talk)
• The paragraph about the sinking is not clear enough, can you please rephrase it.
  • Re-wrote, please indicate what was unclear
    • Now a bit better, was just all over the place and overwhelming. Now its better Trains2050 (talk)

Images

• Can you add some more Images if possible

Citations

• Seems all good

@Crook1:Putting this on hold until the changes are made, Thanks Trains2050 (talk)

@Crook1: In my opinion the article uses too much technical language that might not make sense for all readers so I am afraid to inform you that I will have to fail this article for not meeting criteria 1a which is 'the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct'. I am sorry for putting the article on hold first as I thought it was close meeting the criteria however having 2nd thoughts and putting this article against the GAC, I have no option but to fail it. Sorry again. PS: It is not impossible for the article to pass, try again in a few months. Best wishes Trains2050 (talk)