Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Mercy (AH-4)


 * 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 Mercy (AH-4)|USS ''Mercy'' (AH-4)]]
I believe that this is ready for A-class. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice work. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Under SS Saratoga 2nd paragraph where the collision is described, what happened that the Captain couldn't identify the other ship? If he waited three hours, why? Did the other ship run for the hills?
 * It was in stormy seas at 1:00 a.m.; the article hinted that the other ship must have been OK. I would infer some combination of that plus no lights, poor sea conditions, and/or lack of maneuverability by the sailing ship in bad weather may have been a factor.
 * The formating of "she/her" or "it/its" needs to be standardized. Right now there is a mix.
 * There were two that I found and changed.(plus one where the antecedent was the convoy, not the ship; I changed it for clarity).
 * Was there a particular reason for the danfs template to be under USS Mercy rather than down in the references section?
 * A particular editor frequently mentions the small size of the DANFS wording when its in a "References" section, so I preemptively moved it. I did remove the bullet from in front (which made it look funny).
 * Also, I had failed to cite the DANFS text, but that oversight has now been corrected.
 * Is there any chance for expansion? The article is a bit short and there are gaps in some continuity, though a shortage of information can contribute to that.
 * My usual news sources don't bring up a lot for commissioned ships unfortunately, so the postwar information is pretty sparse.
 * --Brad (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (My replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Support Another nice one! --Brad (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article contains a line commented out about setting off as part of the fifth convoy the day after being stranded after a collision. The issue of which version is correct needs to be sorted out. At least, transferred to the talk page with explanation to be worried over later.
 * I did some further research and found two sources that say passengers from Saratoga were transferred to Finland and sailed about a week later. One of the sources gives the info that the hole in the ship was 30 ft long. I've addressed the conflict in the text saying that one source says they sailed but was conflicted by others.
 * Then, as you are using footnotes anyway, I would be tempted to transfer the contradiction to a footnote. I know it is difficult to choose between versions but having lines in the main text like 'making it seem unlikely that she did sail.' is really inserting a POV about the source reliability into the article. Was there reason to think the contradicted source ought to be accurate? I dont know what others might think about how to play this one? Sandpiper (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point (no pun intended). I've moved the expanded discussion to a footnote. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As an english reader, I am slightly puzzled by the phrase 'rest room', which tends to convey a lounge with comfy chairs. While I hesitate to change it, it doesn't come across well to me as a British reader. In context, it is also either a 'state of the art rest room', or 'both ships were outfitted with...rest rooms'. Depending on exactly how the sentence is meant, whether 'state of the art' applies to all things listed or just the first, either my mind boggles at what exactly a state of the art one is, or under what circumstances ships would not be outfitted with them.
 * The exact sentence from the source is: "The equipment includes the most modern of operating rooms, X-ray laboratories, rest rooms, and various special compartments." I had replaced the "most modern of" with "state of the art" so it would sound a little less Gilbert-and-Sullivan ("… ♫ ♪ the very model of the most modern of operating rooms ♩♫ …") and a little more contemporary. The source wording, regrettably, is ambiguous as to whether or not most modern of modifies only operating rooms or all of the list. Also, my suspicion is that the article was trying to draw a distinction between a restroom (WC) suitable for female nurses and a head (watercraft) suitable for male-only personnel, but is unfortunately ambiguous on this point as well.
 * I'm obviously not familiar with the nuances of american euphemisms on this subject: Do you think then that this point was specifically getting at the presence of female nurses and facilities for them? Would the term customarily, in civilian usage (presuming the source to be civilian), be sex-neutral or imply female, particulalry considering the time it was written? I don't like the current sentence even though it mirrors the source, because it simply causes confusion in the reader (well, me, anyway). I think it would be necessary to interpret this somehow as 'facilities for female staff', or simply ditch it as obvious to a modern reader that female nurses would imply appropriate facilities. Though, as a liner, surely having facilities for females would not be new? I take it there is no question that at that time 'rest room' might have had the face value meaning of a room to rest in, which not being familiar with the usage was something which occured to me on reading it. Sandpiper (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to "… were outfitted with state-of-the-art operating rooms and X-ray labs and could …" The more I thought about it, the more unsure I was as to whether it did mean restroom/WC or something else, because, after all, the ship was carrying female nurses when it sank (or didn't?) in New York before the conversion. Rather than add some vague "…among other facilities…" or something, I just left the rest out. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On the subject of the collision, what is 'head gear' which the schooner lost?Sandpiper (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked it up in the OED and found it means rigging from the front of the ship. I have reworded that sentence into more common terms.
 * Thanks for the copyedits you made. They certainly clarified some muddy language. (My other replies interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Well written, well researched, well done :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent article, meets the criteria. Only suggestion would be to explain why it was painted without the hospital markings. Borg Sphere (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Suppot and close as promoted Woody (talk) 14:20, 10 August 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.