# Talk:SS China Arrow

Hi @Crook1:, I haven't started a GA review, but I was looking at other GA's of ships like SS Choctaw and SS Edward L. Ryerson. Those have the section structure which I put in this article too, but you reverted afterwards. Do you still disagree about it? I'd like to hear your opinion. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi there are no special rules about section naming, it's left up to the author. look around more and will find the same structure I use. Is Operational history wrong?Crook1 (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, then it's fine. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:SS China Arrow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: DocFreeman24 (talk · contribs) 23:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'll plan to review this article. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
A few suggested edits:
Design and construction suggestions

The first time you mention the ship's "deadweight", I would suggest linking to Deadweight tonnage as that term may not be familiar to lay readers.
I would suggest linking to Fore River Shipyard.
Is there a reason to add the yard number?  That seems like a pretty obscure detail, but I admittedly know next to nothing about shipbuilding.
I would suggest changing "Orient" to something like "Asia" throughout the article.  As explained on the article for Orient, the term is fairly broad and, in some senses vague as to where exactly it refers to.  It's also a rather dated term that, IMHO, is beginning to fall out of fashion/use.
Operational history suggestions

The first time you use the phrase "in ballast" please link to Ballast#In commercial shipping as lay readers may not be familiar with this phrase (I know I wasn't!).
In the sentence that begins "On 3 February 1922 . . ." please add a mention of where this event occurred (from the source, I think it's Los Angeles?).
"In April 1922 the tanker took first oil cargo to Russia in many years . . ."  I think you're missing a word here?  It's also a bit of an awkward sentence, so, perhaps re-word?
"During 1928 China Arrow was serving . . ."  I suggest changing "was serving" to "served" as it flows better.
"At about 5 o'clock in the morning on July 26, 1983 . . ."  Two points here.  First, I would harmonize the date formatting as you use European date formatting in the rest of the article (dd/mm/yyyy) but then American date formatting (mm/dd/yyyy) here.  Second, I would change "5 o'clock" to "05:00" to harmonize with how you format time elsewhere in the article.
" with fishing trawler Dorchester who was . . ."  I think you need a "the" after "with".  I would also change "who" to "which" as that seems to flow better in my opinion.
"and a joint with the government plan to build a fleet of new, more modern and speedier vessels."  I think you're missing some word(s) here?
"carrying full load of gasoline."  Think you need an "a" before "full".
"after return" Think this should be "after returning".
"During her second trip to Soviet Union . . ."  I think you need a "the" before "Soviet Union".
"Following return from her third and final trip to Soviet Union . . ."  I would eliminate "return from" in this sentence.  Also, you're missing a "the" before "Soviet Union".
I would delete "Gulf" from "Texas Gulf" as too colloquial.  I would either call them Texas ports or Gulf ports but combining both words doesn't read quite right.
Sinking suggestions

"eight officers and twenty nine men"  I would suggest using numerals (i.e., 8 & 29) for these as the rest of the article uses numerals instead of full words.
"(INSPAT)"  I think you can cut this acronym since you don't use it anywhere else.
Miscellaneous suggestions

Please add an appropriate short description to the article (e.g., "American steam tanker").
I know this issue has been hotly debated within the community, but I would really encourage you to consider using gender neutral pronouns for this ship.  Referring to it as a "she" throughout seems quite dated and odd to me in 2021.  I won't hold up on awarding the GA if you reject this suggestion, I just think it's a strange and outdated style.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Please supply a source for the final two sentences of the "Operational history" section as it is currently unreferenced.  Please also fix the formatting for FN 27 as its currently just a link.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The answer may be no, but is there really no image that can be used in this article?  Given the age of the subject matter and the jurisdictions the boat visited, I would suspect that there might be a public domain image but if you've looked and been unable to find anything, then that's all good.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Very nicely done!  I really enjoyed reading this article and it's in quite good shape.  Above, I've left some comments which, if you resolve, I think we should be good to go for GA.  Thanks!
DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, I will be making corrections.Crook1 (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
All done except:
1. yard number is how the shipbuilder identifies the vessel (each one has a unique one). We usually keep them in the article for reference as well as the infobox. 
2. I retained "she" for the ship as it is currently allowed under the project guidelines. 
3. "eight officers and twenty nine men" - typically this is how it is suggested to be written - small numbers as words, big ones as numbers. I'm not married to it, and if you feel strongly it should be changed I will.
Crook1 (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks for all the hard work!  Those are all reasonable points of pushback and I appreciate the dialogue.  I'll approve the GA shortly. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and kudos particularly for finding a suitable image.  It really adds to the article! DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)