This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
Hi! I will be reviewing this article, and I should have the full review up within a couple of hours.
Dana boomer (
talk) 14:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)reply
There is not really supposed to be new information in the lede. Is there anyway you could move this reference down to the appropriate section? Also, the last sentence in the lede ("sank with the loss of over 272 men—over half of the men on board.") sounds odd...I think it's the two "overs" so close together. Is is possible to reword this somehow?
That was added in the
DYK? process. I have no problem removing the cite since it is cited below. Not sure how the first over got, well, overlooked, since the death toll is reported as 272 (not about or over 272)
In the second paragraph of "US Army service" there are a lot of sentences that include "had to...". I count two "had to be"'s and two "had to have"'s. This gets a little repetitive. Any way to reword? Maybe say "all of the ships were hastily refitted" and "designated to carry troops had all of their", etc. Possible?
Good suggestions. I also reworded another sentence in the paragraph, too.
In the third paragraph of "US Army service", why is this a "comfortable" speed?
Well, its not the top speed of the ship or anything. But I took it out since it's not really all that important.
Very well-written article! I am putting the article on hold for seven days to deal with or respond to the couple of points I made above. If you have questions, please respond here (I have this page watchlisted) or on my talk page.
Dana boomer (
talk) 15:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Thank you for another thoughtful review. I've interspersed specific replies above. —
Bellhalla (
talk) 15:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Looks good, so I'm passing the article now. Thank you for the prompt response!
Dana boomer (
talk) 15:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
Hi! I will be reviewing this article, and I should have the full review up within a couple of hours.
Dana boomer (
talk) 14:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)reply
There is not really supposed to be new information in the lede. Is there anyway you could move this reference down to the appropriate section? Also, the last sentence in the lede ("sank with the loss of over 272 men—over half of the men on board.") sounds odd...I think it's the two "overs" so close together. Is is possible to reword this somehow?
That was added in the
DYK? process. I have no problem removing the cite since it is cited below. Not sure how the first over got, well, overlooked, since the death toll is reported as 272 (not about or over 272)
In the second paragraph of "US Army service" there are a lot of sentences that include "had to...". I count two "had to be"'s and two "had to have"'s. This gets a little repetitive. Any way to reword? Maybe say "all of the ships were hastily refitted" and "designated to carry troops had all of their", etc. Possible?
Good suggestions. I also reworded another sentence in the paragraph, too.
In the third paragraph of "US Army service", why is this a "comfortable" speed?
Well, its not the top speed of the ship or anything. But I took it out since it's not really all that important.
Very well-written article! I am putting the article on hold for seven days to deal with or respond to the couple of points I made above. If you have questions, please respond here (I have this page watchlisted) or on my talk page.
Dana boomer (
talk) 15:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Thank you for another thoughtful review. I've interspersed specific replies above. —
Bellhalla (
talk) 15:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Looks good, so I'm passing the article now. Thank you for the prompt response!
Dana boomer (
talk) 15:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)reply