Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Peer review/Bulk carrier
| Toolbox |
|---|
I plan to list Bulk carrier for A-class review here at WP:SHIPS within a couple of days, and would really appreciate feedback prior to doing so. The article was listed as a GA a year ago and later failed at FAC. Since then, I've whittled down on the FAC feedback to the point that I think there are only a handful of remaining issues which I expect to resolve in the next couple of days. Also, Maralia has been kind enough to work her magic on the article, and has been invaluable in polishing it up. Cheers. HausTalk 01:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Ryan4314
editI've only really read the lead, but;
- The "ever" in "and economic forces have driven these ships to become ever larger and more sophisticated." kinda threw me a bit (I thought it was typo at first, then it ruined my flow etc), might wanna consider just dropping the word.
Done It was kind of archaic—I got rid of it.
- Is the comma after "efficiency," ok?
- Putting a comma after the "B" in "A, B, and C" is apparently called using the serial comma and is more common in American English than British English.
- OIC, how interesting, I thought it might be something like that. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Putting a comma after the "B" in "A, B, and C" is apparently called using the serial comma and is more common in American English than British English.
- Maybe a link for Hold
- Done Good call!
- The "and wetting of cargo can all doom a ship" part reads a little funny, do we have to stick to "wetting of cargo"? Is it a proper term?
- Done I got a laugh out of that. For lack of a better idea, I changed it to "cargo saturation" for the time being.
Other than those minor things, great lead! In fact, really good lead. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look! Cheers. HausTalk 17:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)