Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Pennsylvanian/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:49, 9 May 2009 [1].

---

SS Pennsylvanian

Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/SS Pennsylvanian/archive1

This is another article about one of eight sister ships built for the American-Hawaiian Steamship Company in the 1910s. This ship served as a transport for the US Navy in World War I and was scuttled off one of the Normandy beaches as a breakwater during World War II. The article underwent a peer review and passed a Military History A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• images All licences are free, however I would have concerns regarding the frequency of flag use in the infobox, why are these used in preference to stating the country per MOS? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • For ship infoboxes, a consensus method of identifying the registry of a non-military ship is by display of the civil ensign of the country of registry (through the use of {{flagicon}}). For military vessels, the larger flag in the header bar is the consensus method for identifying the navy for which the ship operated. (Unlike many other countries, the national and civil ensigns of the United States are identical to the national flag, which may make it appear redundant.) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment In the introduction" she reverted to her original name of Pennsylvanian. This makes it sound like the ship changed its own name, but it may be that it's supposed to be this way.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  01:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I can see how one might easily interpret the sentence that way, so I've reworded to make clear that American-Hawaiian (and not the ship!) instigated the name change. Thank you for you comment. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review -- there are no disambiguation links [dab finder tool], dead external links [links checker tool], nor errors in ref formatting [WP:REFTOOLS]--Truco 02:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Just the kind of comment I like to see :) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.navsource.org/archives/12/173511.htm a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the NavSource citation with the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships citation and another page from the Naval History & Heritage Command (formerly the Naval Historical Center) website. (As an aside, the information at NavSource is reliable—from my personal experience—even if it may not necessarily fulfill the requirements to be considered a "reliable source".) Thanks for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent article which meets the FA criteria. The level of detail is remarkable and the article is a good read and well illustrated. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article which meets the FA criteria. Cla68 (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Fine article, in keeping with its sisters. Karanacs (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.