Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Orizaba (ID-1536)


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:46, 24 April 2008.

USS Orizaba (ID-1536)
Self-nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article consideration because I believe it meets all the requirements. It underwent a WP:MILHIST peer review here and successfully passed a A-Class review here — Bellhalla (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Very interesting read, references look good. Thanks for working on such a fine article. Dincher (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support A very good article. Great work on it. Jmsloderbeck (Talk) 00:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Contribs:  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * Support I see nothing glaringly wrong with this article other than what has already been mentioned above. --Brad (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Alright, it looks like my issues have been addressed. I'm sure I could find other nit-picky things to complain about, but for the most part it looks great. You have my Support. Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Support No remaining issues. Well done. Maralia (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - Have watched this article matriculate and can see nothing that would lead me to have an issue with this article becoming an FA forthwith. -MBK004 04:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentI should have commented earlier, because at Jack Kemp I am debating about the repeated publisher and works links. I don't think they should have been delinked here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm not really getting what you mean, but I see negligible value in repeated links to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, etc. Maralia (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support -- Good, well balanced article. Very rarely do I support on first reading. Just a suggestion: You could add the location where the ship was scrapped, and the callsign of the ship (is it ID 1536?). =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources I have don't say where the ship was scrapped. ID-1536 was its US Navy designation in World War I; its call sign in the US Navy (at some point in time) was "NUBY". If Navsource Naval History is deemed a reliable source (see discussion above), i'll be happy to add the call sign (plus its reference to Navsource) into the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Call sign added to World War II section on infobox; I found a WWII-era source that shows NUBY was the call sign during WWII (at least). — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I just found two minor issues, but I fixed them myself. Good work.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Exceptional article. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.