Talk:SS Fort Stikine/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 19:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

This is actually a good article, no problems with it, at least not big ones... The picture of the fokke should be placed with the section of the article where it's relevant, but I see that you have a lot of photos, and that makes placement complicated. I've made some grammatical tweaks in the various paragraphs of the convoys, but this is all fairly complicated to-ing and fro-ing, and also fairly tedious. I'm wondering if much of that can be entered into a table, and you can use text for the section leading up to the cargo that exploded... See what you think, and ping me, then I'll come back and finish the review. auntieruth (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntieruth55: I will work on this over the weekend. Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntieruth55: - I'm not in favour of putting the convoys into table format. We are fortunate to have the complete history of this vessel well documented, which I have presented as text in chronological order. The photo of the Focke-Wulf Condor should appear in its correct position. I do tend to have my browser set at a larger text size (125% I think), so maybe increasing the text size will work for you. Please continue with reviewing the elements of the GA and let me know if there are any issues arising. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Happy to pass this! auntieruth (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]