Talk:SS West Cheswald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article SS West Cheswald has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 15, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 18, 2008.
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Ships (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.


A photograph shows loading sugar sacks in Hawaii, but the caption and text discusses a case involving sugar shipped from Java. The photo therefore seems to be unrelated. Kablammo (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • In the Arctic convoy section, you say "Her closest class occurred". I'm not sure what this is supposed to say, or I'd change it :)
      • I don't know what sort of brain lock-up occurred there. It should have said "her closest call occurred". Now fixed. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I was pretty sure it was something like this, but I figured it was probably better that you made sure :) Dana boomer (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  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:

Just one minor prose issue to be addressed before I pass this article for GA, so I'm putting it on hold. Drop me a note if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply above. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Everything looks good now, so I'm passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)