Talk:SS Ohioan (1914)/GA1

GA Review
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 I should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the World War I section, you say "Nevertheless, on 5 August 1918". The "nevertheless" is probably unnecessary, and can be removed.
 * Removed. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In the Later career section, you say "spectators clamored over the cliff..." Should this be "clambered"?  A clamor is a loud uproar (noise) made by a crowd of people, to clamber is to scramble or climb with difficulty.  Clambered sounds more appropriate here, given the context, but that may just be me reading it wrong!
 * You are right. I guess I didn't know they were different words. You learn something new everyday :) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Same section, you say "attempted to burn some meat in a refrigerator". Wait, he what? Is this a typo?  If not, why the h**l was he trying to burn meat in a refrigerator?!?!  Sorry, this just made me do a complete double take when I read it, and I needed to know if this was really what it was supposed to say :)
 * That's what the source said. My guess is that it may have been rotten meat (especially after 5 months!) that he was trying to get rid of... — Bellhalla (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...OK, I guess I'll just have to deal with my curiosity :) Your explanation is kind of what I was thinking too, but I'm very curious as to why he was trying to do it in the refrigerator as opposed to someplace flameproof...!
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * You have the Minnesota DANFS entry in the notes section, but not the full ref in the bibliography section, as far as I can tell.
 * Whoops! It's in there now. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Just a couple of minor issues, so I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to deal with them. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Replies interspersed above. Thanks again for the review! — Bellhalla (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work on another Good Article! Dana boomer (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)