Talk:Baltimore Steam Packet Company/GA

GA review

On hold - comments below.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Mostly minor stylistic things for prose:

   • "Old Bay Line" in the lead sentence doesn't need to be in italics Done
   • A city, state, combo used in a sentence needs a comma after the state. "Baltimore, Maryland", and "Richmond, Virginia", in the lead; others elsewhere as well Done
   • "wartorn" should be "war-torn" in the last paragraph of the lead Done
   • I think the "Routes operated" section should be placed after the "History" section Fixed
   • I don't think the heading "The coming of the steamboat age; 1810s–1830s" is really necessary. The paragraphs that follow are a nice introduction to the company's history, and eliminating it would avoid the double section heading. Done
   • I would avoid semicolons in section headings, like "Beginnings of the Old Bay Line; 1840–1850s", "Postwar; the Exodus" and "1950s–1960s; demise". I don't think the last one really needs the dates, either; just "Demise" or even "Demise of the Old Bay Line" would do nicely. Done
   • In the section"Beginnings of the Old Bay Line; 1840–1850s", line should be capitalized as part of a proper noun Powhatan Line. The phrase a predecessor of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad should be removed from the parentheses, and RF&P, with no quotes, placed retained in them. The phrase carried away by delight over his travel experience on the Baltimore Steam Packet Company needs to be set off with commas for clarity. Done
   • The phrase the longest-serving president of the company for 26 years (1867–1893) needs to be recast. Did he, in fact, only hold the longest-serving president title for 26 years? Or was he the longest serving, and his tenure was 26 years? It presently reads as the former. Fixed
   • In the section "Civil War and 1860s–1910s", you don't need to provide the shorthand RF&P again. In the next section the USRA shorthand shouldn't be part of the wikilink. Fixed
   • Are the ships City of Norfolk and City of Richmond in the "1920s–1930s" section the same ones referred to in the next section as being from the Chesapeake Line, as I think they are? It's a little confusing talking about retiring ships in one paragraph and then talking about acquiring the same ships in the next paragraph., especially since the history presented in a chronological order.Y
   • In the section"Postwar; the Exodus", you don't need to link to [[War Shipping Administration}} since it was linked in the paragraph before. Also, id the name of the "Jewish organization" known? Fixed
   • In the section "1950s–1960s; demise": In the first sentence, "the city" is Baltimore, right? The sentence beginning Alas, too few unhurried…, you need to replace where with were Fixed
   • In the "See also" section, a short explanation about the relevance of the link to this article would be appropriate.Y

   For MOS, the table is very nice, but information shouldn't be presented by solely by color. I would keep the colors and add another column to the table for "Type" or some such Fixed

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.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

   I have concerns about Image:Old Bay Line terminal in 1911.jpg and its licensing. I see that it was taken in 1911, but published in 1961. If 1961 was the first publish date, then {{PD-US}} might not be the appropriate license.

    Done Checking withUpdate: the Mariners' Museum verified first publication date was 1911.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Very nice article overall. The objections to the prose should all be able to be remedied within seven days. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comprehensive GA review. I've addressed all of the prose items and have checked them off above. Still working on the image question (above). JGHowes ^talk - 02:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • See update above; image verified as PD-US JGHowes ^talk - 00:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)