Some copyediting is needed, mainly to check for typos.
I corrected misspellings of "camouflage" (in an image tag) and of "Gibraltar" in the main article. I'll see if I can get some outside eyes to take a look for others.
It may or may not be useful to recombine some of the paragraphs so that there are not so many single-sentence, one-line paragraphs. In some places, this detracts from the visual appeal of the article.
Sentence length comment noted. Perhaps a copy-editor could make some suggestions for changes.
I think the fate tab should say "Scrapped in 1957" since that was the ship's ultimate fate.
Done
Make absolutely sure that the article adheres to an all "she/her" format or an all "it" format.
Will do. Done
Lose the "History" header, since the whole article is history it would be best to make your sub headers the primary headers.
Good point. Done
Just curious, but would you happen to know if the ship was unique or part of a class? I won;t hold this question against you, I just want to know if you know.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
18:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)reply
DANFS entries don't show a class for either, but Siboney and
USS Orizaba (ID-1536) were both built by Wm. Cramp, both have basically the same dimensions and displacement, both were originally laid down for the
Ward Line at essentially the same time, and both taken over by the Navy in WW I. Where in the article would be an appropriate place to say that they were, if not a class, sister ships (in a non-OR-ish way, of course)?
If it were me I put it in the intro, something like "USS Siboney (ID-2999) was a transport ship for the United States Navy during World War I. She was the sister ship of
USS Orizaba (ID-1536), although the two were not part of a ship class." Otherwise, it looks good. Well Done.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
22:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)reply