Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SS American (1900)

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.

SS American (1900) edit

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

This article is about another of the steamers of the American-Hawaiian Steamship Company. This one was credited with sinking a ship in U.S. Navy service during World War I; unfortunately for the Americans, it was another U.S. Navy ship. The article has passed a GA review and I believe that it fulfills the A-Class requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

"American-Hawaiian signed contract with the Tehuantepec National Railway of Mexico," Do you mean a contract?
- *Sigh*. It's when I make silly mistakes like that one that really irk me… Yes, a contract is what I meant, and have changed it. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"six men he had personally saved to a life raft" Perhaps escorted would be better than saved here?
- I changed to escorted, but I wish the source were more clear: it almost read as if he had carried them, but, of course, it didn't explicitly state that. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, minor issues. – Joe N 20:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another helpful review, Joe. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - feel free to disregard if you feel that the suggested change would not help the article.
- This may sound dumb, but the thought just occurred to me...should "propeller" be linked?
  - Do you mean it is linked and you think it shouldn't, or it needs to be and isn't currently? — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should a short description of what the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is be included in the lead? I don't want to have to click on the link becuase I have no idea what it is, but I'm kinda forced to. :)
  - Valid point. Clarified. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Taken up for wartime service after the United States entered World War I in April 1917, [...]" 'Taken up' seems awkward to me...
  - Would expropriated sound better? — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should "round trip" be hyphenated?
  - In the one case where it was used adjectivally, yes. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "She was sold in 1926 and taken to Osaka where she was broken up sometime after her arrival there in November." - November 1926, 1927? What year?
  - 1926. I was trying to be succinct. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, when the United States entered World War I in April 1917, the entire American-Hawaiian fleet, including American, was requisitioned by the United States Shipping Board (USSB), which then returned the ships for operation by American-Hawaiian." - 'requistioned' -> 'returned the ships'?
  - Basically, the USSB requisitioned all privately owned ships over a certain size, which included the American-Hawaiian fleet. The USSB wanted to control what got shipped where, etc., with war cargoes and materiel given priority, but did not want to dirty their hands in the day-to-day operations. So, in the case of American-Hawaiian at least, the USSB let A-H operate the ships, but when and where the USSB told them to. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "American, which was lightly damaged by the collision,[4] [...]" - would '...was not heavily damaged...' sound better? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds like "six of one...". I'd rather go with a positive than a negative where possible. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Ed. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support A-class alright. Nothing to complain about in the article, and nothing registers as problematic on the tool check links. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Tom. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.