# Talk:SS El Occidente

This review is transcluded from Talk:SS El Occidente/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi there!  I will be reviewing this article for GA.  The full review should be up within an hour! Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
* In the lead, the fact that the boat was built in 1910 for Morgan Line is repeated.  Can this be removed or reworded?
I removed it from the lead sentence, so it's only in the second paragraph now.
* Some ships that don't have articles are red-linked (USAT Montanan, USAT Momus), while others are not wikilinked at all (El Mundo, City of Montgomery).  Is there a reason for this?
The redlinked ones are ships that are definitely notable as Army/Navy ships. Where there is questionable notability I've left the ships unlinked.
* In the World War I section, there is some wording that could be seen as slightly POV.  For example, "had a select committee of shipping executives pore over registries", "the ships had to be hastily refitted", "steaming at a leisurely 11-knot (20 km/h) pace." (emphasis mine).  Do the sources back up this wording?
I'll concede "leisurely". For the other three, the wording is mine, but accurately reflects the feel of the source.
* In the World War I section (and to a lesser extent the World War II section), there is an abundance of short paragraphs, some that are only one sentence.  Could these be combined?
Combined some in WWI and two in WWII.
* In the Interwar civilian service section, the phrase "took El Occidente under tow to Norfolk" sounds slightly odd to my non-maritime ears.  If this is the common phrase, then it is fine to leave, but could it be changed to something like "towed El Occidente to Norfolk"?
Changed. The original is a common maritime expression, but your proposed rewording is easier to understand
* In the World War II section, where it says "and paid $4.7 million for the ships and a further $2.6 million for repairs and refits.[29]", does this mean for just the three ships including El Occidente, or the entire ten from the Morgan Line?
For all ten ships. Reworded for clarity.
* In the World War II section, where it says "the remaining 20 crewmen were killed.[30]", does this mean they were killed by the German u-boat, or eaten by sharks, or drowned, or something else entirely?  More specificity, please, if possible.
The source lists 20 killed and doesn't specify in what manner. My guess would be be a combo of the torpedo attack itself, drowning, and hypothermia. I changed to "died" instead of "were killed" but would be OK with just ending the sentence after the semicolon. What do you think?
Leaving it as "died" works for me.  It's mainly a nit-picky preference thing anyway - to me, "killed" suggests that they were deliberately disposed of by a human for a specific reason, while "died" could be because of weather, sharks, or other non-human means.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
* The sentence: "Offloading her cargo at at Saint-Nazaire and Verdun, El Occidente returned to the U.S. on 1 November." in the World War I section does not have a reference.
Added.
I'm still not seeing a cite here...am I just missing something?
My apologies, I thought I'd added that one already. It should be there now. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
* The sentence: "Returned by the USSB in March 1919, El Occidente resumed cargo service with the Morgan Line, where she had almost 15 years of routine operation." in the Interwar Civilian Service section does not have a reference.
Added.
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, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Why does the caption say "before 1917"?  Did the ship look different after 1917?
The ship's basic structure/profile would have remained the same, but paint schemes would have been different. I expanded the caption with more context for the picture
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I am putting this article on hold for seven days to allow the authors to address the issues I have raised.  Please feel free to check off, strike off, or otherwise mark comments you have resolved, so that we can both see what has been done and what still needs work.  If you have any questions, you can contact me here (I'll have this page watchlisted) or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've made changes based on your remarks (and have interspersed specific replies above). If you have any further comments or suggestions on my changes or comments, please post them here. I have this page watchlitsed as well. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Most of the things above look like you've completed them more than satisfactorily.  The only issue that I still have a concern with is the one un-referenced sentence.  Fix this, and I will be more than happy to pass the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks good.  I'll pass the article right away.  Thanks for all your hard work and your quick response to my comments!  Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)