Talk:Seisho Maru/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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:
 * I have concerns about the article name. The vessel was most (16 of 25 years) of its career named Seisho Maru, and the most dominant part of the history section is attributed to this period of the ships life. My interpretation of Naming conventions (ships) says change to the Japanese name, but I am willing to forfeit this claim is a compelling reason for the naming choice is given.
 * Looking at the facts as you presented them, I can see that is correct, and have moved it to Seisho Maru. Thanks for catching that. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * I would like an explanation as to the naming choice before I pass the article—otherwise there is nothing to point to. Arsenikk (talk)  15:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (My reply above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, and congratulations with a Good Article. Now I just have a mess since you moved the article in the middle of the review ;) Arsenikk (talk)  16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, and sorry about the mess. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I like a challenge—and all I needed to do was move the review page ;) Arsenikk (talk)  18:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like an explanation as to the naming choice before I pass the article—otherwise there is nothing to point to. Arsenikk (talk)  15:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (My reply above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, and congratulations with a Good Article. Now I just have a mess since you moved the article in the middle of the review ;) Arsenikk (talk)  16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, and sorry about the mess. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I like a challenge—and all I needed to do was move the review page ;) Arsenikk (talk)  18:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)