Talk:BX (sternwheeler)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the BX (sternwheeler) article.
Article policies
Good article BX (sternwheeler) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
British Columbia
British Columbia Portal
This article is part of the British Columbia WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Good article GA rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale

[edit] Good Article nomination on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Reasons for verdict and suggestions: I have place the article on hold for the following reasons:

  • Section 2a & c - The article has few references and many unreferenced statements, with an unhealthy dabbling of weasel words. For example: "she would be the finest, most luxurious craft", says who exactly? "Never ... would there be a luckier or more successful ship", says who? Another example is the statement that "her memory is honored, and she is recalled in dozens of local history books", except that none of these books are referenced. It smacks of WP:OR
  • Section 4b - There is not much about the criticism of the boat. If there was none, say it and cite it. Would also be nice to know how profitable the boat was if that information is available.
  • On the whole, the article flows well, follows WP:MoS, is stable, and has good images to back up the text. However, references do seriously need to be addressed to allow this article to reach GA standard. A GAN can be on hold for a minimum of 2 days and a maximum of 7. If you have addressed the above issues, please leave a message on my talk page and I will come and re-review! Good luck and happy editing! Mouse Nightshirt | talk 00:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination re-review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I now believe all the issues have been addressed and can now pass this article. Congratulations and thank you all for you hard work! Mouse Nightshirt | talk 22:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I do have some comments that should be considered however. Firstly, the prose is a little dramatic in places and as a result doesn't always read well. I recommend a good copyedit by someone not closely involved in the subject to level this out. Secondly, the article would benefit significantly from a new lead. The current one is in effect the opening paragraph of Construction and does not introduce and summarise the article as a lead should, see WP:Lead for details. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)