Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Orizaba (ID-1536)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Orizaba (ID-1536)[edit]

Self-nomination. Has undergone a MILHIST peer review here. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. I added in a couple of nbsp's but couldn't see anything substantive. I do think it might need a copyedit from someone not involved with ships as there are a few nautical terms in there that might not be self-explanatory to a newbie. Also, should it be underwent overhaul or underwent an overhaul? I think the latter flows better... Woody (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. Fixed. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've copyedited it; changes were largely nonbreaking spaces and endashes (I think some were endashes, but some weren't, so excuse my blindness in 'fixing' them all). Can you clarify which type of tonnage is given in the infobox? Also, in the footnote 'Williamson, DANFS' the word 'Williamson' shouldn't be italicized; quotes would be more appropriate.

I've generally always italicize DANFS entry titles because that's the way the titles are styled at the NHC website (and they're usually ship names, too). That note and the reference for Orizaba in the references section both use {{cite web}}. Removing the italics would be easy if you think it would be best, but should I use a different template for quotes? — Bellhalla (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good case for keeping the italics. Let's talk about coming up with a standard cite template to cite DANFS (where it's actually cited, as distinct from the PD disclaimer). Something along the lines of {{Ref Jane's}}, {{JamesAbstract}}, etc, but a bit more complex since some entries have a distinct author. Maralia (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, clarified that the 6,937 is "gross tons" as from source. I listed it as that because I don't know if that's the same as GRT or not. Tonnage stuff is always so confusing. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 'gross ton' is a measure of weight, not volume, though. Is it abbreviated in the source? It may be 'gross tonnage'. Maralia (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It just has "Gross tons..............6,937" in its list of specs. (The source has no 'key' for the data it provides either.) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of issues to consider before FAC:

~~There are quite a few single sentence paragraphs, or very short ones, that should be consolidated.~~

~~Will do.~~ Done.

The doublestack images are awfully large for the position that they're in (squished opposite the infobox). Can you shrink them to thumbs?

Image size is one of those tricky things because there are so many variables. What size would you recommend?

I would use the default thumb size of 180px; those two images are of pretty mediocre quality, so they don't look appreciably better or worse at a larger size, and the smaller size will make the text sandwiching less egregious. Maralia (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, well done, as usual :) Maralia (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(My replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Support Fine but with a couple of reservations:

I'd jettison the one-sentence "Awards and honors" section and tag it onto the end of "World War II".

I'd thought about that myself, too. ~~Will do.~~ Done.

Uncomfortable repetition in "Commander Richard Drace White in command".

Yes, that is clunky, isn't it?

OK, so I tried to rephrase by moving White's name into the following paragraph where he was mentioned already. It's still clunky, but not quite SO clunky. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any clues why Hart Crane jumped?

I gather from the source that he was (1) was drunk, (2) despondent over his sham marriage, and (3) reportedly embarrassed after a failed, clumsy pick-up attempt of an Orizaba crewman the night before. In a situation like this, how much information is appropriate in this article?

"U.S." > "US" Done

I've always used "U.S." myself (vs. "UK", for example), but I'm OK with "US".

Numbers less than ten are usually given in words, therefore "6 convoy trips" > "six convoy trips; Done
Clunky? "the two ships accommodated 306 first-class, 60 second-class, and 64 third-class passengers". Is that each, or between them? Perhaps use berths instead of passengers?

The source doesn't explicitly say. Based on WWI troop capacities, I'm sure it's each, but the wording reflects what's provided in the source.

"The ship was permanently transferred to Brazil in June 1953 and struck from the U.S. Navy Naval Vessel Register on 20 July 1953." Run onto the end of previous (short) paragraph.

~~Will do.~~ Done

Just noticed "transited the Panama Canal". More elegant phrasing?

How about "passed through"? (Done.)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(My replies interspersed — Bellhalla (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No grumbles with them. :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks very good to me. -Ed! (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.