Talk:SS Montanan
 | SS Montanan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 13, 2016. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:SS Montanan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi! I will be doing the GA review for this article, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- In the very last sentence of the article, you talk about the fate of the West Bridge. While this is an interesting tidbit of information, I'm not totally sure that it's needed in an article on the Montanan, and I'm also not sure that it's a good ending sentence for an article. If you really want to keep this bit of information (and, like I said, it's interesting, so I'm not horribly against it), would there be any way to re-word this section so that the West Bridge isn't the very last thing talked about in the article, since the article isn't about that ship?
- Good point. I converted the sentence into a note. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- In the very last sentence of the article, you talk about the fate of the West Bridge. While this is an interesting tidbit of information, I'm not totally sure that it's needed in an article on the Montanan, and I'm also not sure that it's a good ending sentence for an article. If you really want to keep this bit of information (and, like I said, it's interesting, so I'm not horribly against it), would there be any way to re-word this section so that the West Bridge isn't the very last thing talked about in the article, since the article isn't about that ship?
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Please add authors for the short refs of the West Alsek and West Bridge DANFS cites.
- Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please add authors for the short refs of the West Alsek and West Bridge DANFS cites.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Overall, a very nice article. I'm putting it on hold to allow time for a few minor tweaks. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Very nice! Thanks for the quick response; I'm going to pass the article now. Dana boomer (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
naval armed guardsmen
editThis article about World War I contains a link regarding 'naval armed guardsmen' that resolves to United States Navy Armed Guard. The latter article only points to World War II activities. Author may want to check this out. Hmains (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, one of these is clearly wrong. I noticed this before I read the talk page here. Also, compared to other FAs on ships, this is ridiculously short. How it meets the comprehensive standards of FAs is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:AD00:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
References
editCurrent ref 22 is "Sharpe, p. 359", but I cannot see this in the bibliograpy. Also one of the DANFS links fails due to robot.txt (or at least it does for me). Davidships (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SS Montanan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008154823/http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/1major/inactive/bethsparrowspoint.htm to http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/1major/inactive/bethsparrowspoint.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)