# Talk:SS Black Osprey

This review is transcluded from Talk:SS Black Osprey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
A few minor inconsistencies. Please choose on of the typographical varieties of "New York – Rotterdam" and "Baltimore–Antwerp". Why are some abbreviations encapsulated in small, and other regular size? This is a violation of the Mos, that also advises against periods—in particular where other non-punctuated abbreviations are used (such as the use of U.S. in this text).
Dash spacing fixed. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I've always followed the rule that acronyms or initialisms of four or more characters should be in small caps to avoid overwhelming the surrounding text. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, because the article is written in American English, I've used the more common "U.S." (with periods) for that abbreviation only. If there are any consistencies from my I intent, I'm happy to make changes. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
If you insist this is within the realm of the MoS, it is fine for me. Arsenikk (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

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.: 
One edit? Impressive.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
A few small MoS details and the article will pass—put on hold on the mean time.
My replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Passed. Congratulations with another Good Ship. Arsenikk (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In 2008, Black Osprey was awarded "Good Article" status despite a number of verifiable errors. The infobox incorrectly stated that she had a triple expansion engine, whereas the text correctly said she had a steam turbine. No-one noted the discrepancy, or checked which of the two contradictory claims was correct.
The infobox gave her ports of registry as "United States" and "United Kingdom". Countries of registration are not ports of registry. In fact, she was registered in Seattle, then New York, and finally London.
The text claimed that the the operator who chartered Black Osprey late in 1940 was the Isthmian Steamship Company. However, The New York Times that the text cited states that the States Marine Corporation chartered her.
The text claimed that U-96 hit Black Osprey at 02:27 hrs on 18 February. However, the source cited says that at 02:27 hrs U-96 missed its target, and did not hit her until 03:25 hrs.
The article claimed that "Little is known of West Arrow's early career, with almost no information regarding her World War I activities." The second part of that sentence may be true, but the first was not, even in 2008. In 2007, the Library of Congress launched Chronicling America, in which thousands of US newspapers are digitised. These fully document West Arrow's movements from late 1919 until the end of 1922. Only her war service, from February to November 1918, is missing.
A "Good Article" need not be comprehensive, but what it includes should be "factually accurate and verifiable". Whether the above errors are important, and an article that included them was "factually accurate and verifiable" is questionable. I have now amended all of those errors.
I have also checked as many as I can of the citations, and added urls to all but one of The New York Times articles cited. I have been unable to find one NYT article, which allegedly states that Black Osprey diverted to Wake Island in 1940 to check on the Pan Am Clipper base after a typhoon. I have found nothing in either the NYT or any other US newspaper to verify this. I would be grateful to anyone who can resolve this one way or another.
Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)