Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290)


 * 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.

This article passed.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[[USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290)|USS ''Princess Matoika'' (ID-2290)]]
I believe that this meets the requirements of an A-class article. I'm marching it up the assessment scale with a goal of FA, soon. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Well, you have certainly provided enough sources for any FAC :) I am a little concerned about the website http://www.maritimematters.com/princess-matoika-seamemory.html, it seems iffy to me; otherwise my initial look through didn;t turn up anything suspicious. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that it reproduces a first-person account, I felt the site was OK. (Looking around at the site, all of its pages seem to have bibliographies and personally would not have any qualms about the site as a whole as a reliable source.) — Bellhalla (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Alright then, I am happy. Everything else appears in order, although I may have additional comments later. On the whole though, well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Solidly support. I did catch a few minor wording problems and corrected those. I also found in a few places where the ship name was showing as President Arthur 's (but in italics) and fixed those, though I hope it wasn't just my browser doing that; I think I got them all. A few more redlink fill ins and FA should be a breeze and if Al Jolson sailed on this ship it should be FA! --Brad (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - However, I have some comments which may or may not be correct. JonCatalán (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead is really long. I know that leads are supposed to cover the text, but they are also supposed to be concise.  I admit that I don't really know the guidelines for leads that well, and so the lead might actually be fine, but as it stands it's incredibly long in my perspective.  Perhaps some one else can offer their opinion and tell me I'm wrong. :)


 * No, you're correct. The length of the lead has been a concern of mine for some time. I need to sharpen my editor's knife and be ruthless to get it down to four paragraphs. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Couple of issues. The lead is too big for FA, it needs cutting down, be ruthless though you have acknowledged this above, so no biggy. The trouble with having such a huge infobox is that it can take over half the article. Under MOS:IMAGE, text should not be sandwiched between images and infoboxes so you have quite a big problem with three of the images. Images should also not be left aligned for level 2 headings. (see Image:SS Princess Alice interned at Cebu, Philippines.jpg and  Some prose issues, she would not budge off the ledge. just seems a bit too colloquial to me, might just be me though. You might want to try and find one of those mythical copy-editors to review it, though to me, it reads quite well. So, I support for A-class but a few things to sort out for FA. Woody (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Some replies:
 * I'm working on trimming the lead.
 * I reworded so it now says "remained stuck on the ledge"
 * I'm aware of the no image "sandwiching", which seems to apply to text between two images but doesn't specifically address image and infobox combos. Your exact point came up in a previous FAC of mine (which ended up passing without a need to change image placement).
 * Thanks for the feedback. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It applies the same for infoboxes, but I went down to 800x600 and the images are pushed below the infobox so it is fine. Woody (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

— Bellhalla (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I have shortened the lead from 5 to 4 paragraphs (and cut a lot out as well)
 * I have split out Mutiny of the Matoika to a sub article.
 * I will soon split out American Palestine Line to a sub article as well.


 * 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.