Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Bridgeport (AD-10)/archive1


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Bridgeport (AD-10)
I would like to have this article undergo an A-class review, with an eye on a possible future FA candidacy. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Object, lots of paragraphs are unreferenced, the article is long, but I don't think that it would pass an A-class review for a while, until it has the references, and probably untill it has reached GA-Class, which I do not think it is right now. ~  Dreamy   §  23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Bellhalla (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, well done. I will now support this. ~  Dreamy   §  01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Lose the history header. The entire article is history, so in this case it would be better to make your sub header the primary headers.
 * ✅ — Bellhalla (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Entire sections of the article have no inline citations, but DANFS and other sources are given in the table. Some of those citations need to be in the article body, otherwise this article will get shot down by FAC Anti-Ariticle guns.
 * Good job on finding images for the article.
 * I doubt it, but do you happen to know if this ship was part of a larger class? I'm guessing no, and I won't hold this against you if you can't find any info, but it would be nice to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know but suspect that SS Brandenburg (1902) of Norddeutscher Lloyd was probably a sister ship. They were about the same gross tonnage, built at the same shipyard, and had more or less the same dimensions (per info gleaned from de:Norddeutscher Lloyd). Also, an image of Brandenburg (here) bears a striking resemblance to Breslau/Bridgeport. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at the moment. As Dreamafter points out, there is a need for more rigorous citation. I would also suggest that you expand the lead a little, but that's a relatively minor complaint at this point. Carom (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support following improvements. Nice work. Carom (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support the addition of inline citations does much to improve the article. I am happy now. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.