Talk:Triple E-class container ship/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 03:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Asian builders are now considered more competitive." how are they competitive? Price wise?
 * ✅ The relative merits of different builders were outlined in the following sentence - it's largely about price. I've tweaked the wording to make this clearer.
 * "Chinese (for technology reasons)" could you please elaborate?
 * I was wary of digressing on this one. Chinese shipyards have massively increased output but have less experience with really advanced, high-tech, complex projects such as this one. There may also be concerns about technology transfer / IP theft but this is not said explicitly in sources. Do you want a bit of expansion on this point?
 * "helped Maersk win a the 'Sustainable Ship Operator of the Year" a implies there are the same awards from other institutions.
 * "The engines have waste heat recovery (WHR) systems,, known as WHR; heat recovery which is also used in 20 other Mærsk vessels including the eight E-class ships.
 * "Economy of scale, Energy efficient and Environmentally improved" I suggest only italicise the letter E.
 * "Seawise Giant was the largest of all." I don't think it's needed.
 * Personally, I would disagree. Since the extreme size of the ships is the basis of their notability, and most readers are likely to be here for that reason rather than because of personal passion for Maersk, I feel it may be better to have a few extra words on this point. How about a compromise - remove the explicit mention of Seawise Giant, but add a link to the list of longest ships - does that sound fair?
 * "The hull is more 'boxy'" compared to what?
 * "The hull is more 'boxy' with a U-shape compared to the V-shape of Maersk's E-class". It would be nice to wikilink "boxy" but we don't have a good target yet, as articles on naval architecture are slightly hit and miss - there's no article on block coefficient yet (it's on my to-do list).
 * " Panama canal" capitalise "C"
 * " In 2008, The late-2000s recession in many countries" the recession didn't only happened in 2008.
 * The decline in demand in container transport happened in 2008. I've rearranged the sentence to make this relationship clearer - does that help?
 * " Panama canal" capitalise "C"
 * " In 2008, The late-2000s recession in many countries" the recession didn't only happened in 2008.
 * The decline in demand in container transport happened in 2008. I've rearranged the sentence to make this relationship clearer - does that help?
 * The decline in demand in container transport happened in 2008. I've rearranged the sentence to make this relationship clearer - does that help?

Comments from Haus
Hi. It would be a conflict of interest for me to review this article, however there are a number of items that I think could use some attention before this article passes GA. I'll excuse myself and leave the decisions up to the reviewer.


 * "In February 2011, Maersk announced orders... with an emphasis on lower fuel..." Can an order have an emphasis?
 * This parenthetical conversion seems to be adrift: "(2 trillion Korean Won).[3]"
 * Consistency: "ordered for $1.9bn" where "billion" and "trillion" have been used above.
 * "Payment of the ship" doesn't make sense to me.
 * Consistency: "containership" is used in some places, "container ship" in others.
 * Capitalization: "design: It"
 * This sentence has at least two problems: "Usually a single engine is more efficient,[9] but using two propellers allows a better distribution of pressure, increasing propeller efficiency more than the disadvantage of using two engines."
 * "The twin-skeg principle also means..." Can a principle mean anything?
 * "of the desired route" to "along projected routes"?
 * "A slower speed of 19 knots is targeted as the optimum,"
 * "These will be the most efficient containerships in the world, per TEU." Needs a citation.
 * "Seawise Giant was the largest of all." This needs a citation. Arguments down the road could be sidestepped by qualifying this with "in terms of deadweight tonnage."
 * Item 1a of WP:WIAGA requires that "Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs." I'm not convinced that the embedded list in the "Specifications" section complies.
 * Best wishes. Haus Talk 21:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Article should be failed at this time as concerns remain unaddressed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)