Talk:SS Choctaw/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) 09:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking this review, expect comments within the next few days. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 09:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

~~The sections need sorting. I recommend having 4 sections: Design and construction, History, collision, discovery.~~
~~the infobox mentions that it has a 765 horsepower engine whereas the prose mentions 900. Which is correct?~~
~~'temporary repairs were made to the Choctaw...' the prose makes no mention of when the actual repairs were made.~~
~~the photo in the collision section is irrelevant.~~
~~the current collision section focuses mainly on what happened on the wacondah rather than on the Choctaw.~~
~~also could there be a mention of the rough location of the sinking and 'shipwreck alley'~~?
~~Discovery- mention of the sinking and future discovery of the Ironton is irrelevant~~
~~Note B- can this be mentioned in prose instead of its current state~~

hold

I have reviewed the article and have put it on hold while improvements are made. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 08:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other user comments

A red link is present "On May 20, 1896 the Choctaw collided with the larger steel freighter L.C. Waldo which tore a 10-foot hole in her starboard side". For any "B" class articles no red links should be there at the first place (unless it is deliberate for the page to be created later to prevent any complications downstream. will withdraw this concern if it is so). --Quek157 (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, the lead paragraph mentioned "collision with the Canadian package freighter Wahcondah." then the body mentioned larger steel freighter L.C. Waldo, hopefully more harmony can be given. What exactly is the ship name??? --Quek157 (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC) sorry misunderstanding --Quek157 (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Ohio was lost on September 26, 1894 when she collided with the schooner Ironton", what have this have to do with the present ship?--Quek157 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright issues

@GreatLakesShips: None of the images appear to be licensed correctly. The images were obviously all taken before 1921, but that does not mean they were published before 1921, which is what copyright law requires. None of the sources for the images have publication information, nor do they state the image to be in the public domain. These issues need to be addressed before the article passes Criteria #6. Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy and 1.02 editor: Is this copyright issue resolved now? If not this GA has been going on for almost 15 days without notice. With the original reviewer (1.02 editor) on semi-retirement wef yesterday, and the copyright seems not resolved, and no attempts are to do it, can we simply close it as failed based on not meeting #6. --Quek157 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreatLakesShips:, if it is resolved, and the nominator cannot carry on, you may ask to be placed back into the queue. --Quek157 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreatLakesShips and Quek157: sorry for the delay I am closing now 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 02:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

closure

The article fails criteria 6 of the GA criteria (the articles' images are not licensed properly) and there has not been any edits made to this page for close to a fortnight. Hence, I will be closing this review as a fail. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 02:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]