Talk:SS Minnesotan/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi! I will be doing the GA review for this article, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the "Interwar years" section, you say "while the load of copper was reportedly the largest water shipment of Arizona copper to that time." Should this be "at that time"?
 * That's the same sense, but "at the time" suggests there it was the largest of a concurrent group, but not necessarily the largest ever. The source indicated that it was the largest ever (as of the date of the source), and I think "to that time" conveys that a little better. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the "World War II" section, you say "Minnesotan had some undisclosed problem". It might be me, but this wording sounds a little odd.  Perhaps something along the lines of "Minnesotan developed an undisclosed problem"?
 * I like your proposed wording and have implemented it. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Another very nice article. There are a couple of very minor prose issues, but despite these, I am passing the article to GA status. The two prose items are nitpicky things, which you can fix if you have the wish, time and energy :) Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)