Talk:SS Minnesotan/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be doing the GA review for this article, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
In the "Interwar years" section, you say "while the load of copper was reportedly the largest water shipment of Arizona copper to that time." Should this be "at that time"?
That's the same sense, but "at the time" suggests there it was the largest of a concurrent group, but not necessarily the largest ever. The source indicated that it was the largest ever (as of the date of the source), and I think "to that time" conveys that a little better. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the "World War II" section, you say "Minnesotan had some undisclosed problem". It might be me, but this wording sounds a little odd. Perhaps something along the lines of "Minnesotan developed an undisclosed problem"?
I like your proposed wording and have implemented it. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.:
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:

Another very nice article. There are a couple of very minor prose issues, but despite these, I am passing the article to GA status. The two prose items are nitpicky things, which you can fix if you have the wish, time and energy :) Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]