# Talk:MS West Grama

This review is transcluded from Talk:MS West Grama/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hello! I'll have the review up as soon as I can. —the_ed17— 04:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
only one. =)
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Any cite needed for the "sometimes spelled as West Gramma"? I dunno, which is why I'm asking. (You've done enough article on these bloody cargo ships to know!)
One or two of the news items spelled the name with two ms. It wouldn't be a major thing to remove it, but I do have a redirect under the West Gramma spelling
Eh, no big deal...how about adding a note that says x, y, & z refer to the ship as the West Gramma, while p, q, & r sefer to the ship as the West Grama.
citation for this sentence (is it even needed?)?
"The West ships were cargo ships of similar size and design built by several shipyards on the West Coast of the United States for the United States Shipping Board (USSB) for emergency use during World War I."
The Crowell & Wilson ref [7] covers it, but I added an extra ref to make it more clear.
Slightly confusing...why is it "not clear" if the bid was accepted?
"The highest bid for West Grama was $80,000,[27][Note 4] but it is not clear if the bid was, in fact, accepted; by November, West Grama was sailing between Antofagasta, Chile, and New York, but remained under the American flag."
Of the ships listed in the source, all but West Grama changed names and sailed under British registry. Because West Grama continued to sail under American registry, it doesn't seem likely at all that she was sold, especially since the bid for her was way low compared to the other ships offered. It's also possible she was sold and in such poor shape she was returned. Can you suggest wording that might help get that idea across in a non-OR-ish way? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Just say that! Sure, it's borderline OR, but its also part common sense if all of the other ships sailed under British registry...
I'd go with "Her nineteen (right #?) sisters were sold, renamed, and flagged as British. However, West Grama kept her name and U.S. flag, and so it is not entirely clear if she was sold."
Borderline OR, sure, but I don't think that we'll need a source if we are saying that we are not sure. Regardless, a little thing like this isn't going to hold up the GA nomination. —the_ed17— 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll put this on hold; with your track record, this'll be done quickly. I should just fail it and try to torpedo your chances on the WP:MILHIST contest, but I'll be nice. ;D Cheers! —the_ed17— 05:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Passing now! —the_ed17— 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MS West Grama. 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/20080922163235/http://shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/2large/inactive/toddsanpedro.htm to http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/2large/inactive/toddsanpedro.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/NAVEXOS_P-474C.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110920024209/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq79-1.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq79-1.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) 02:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)