Talk:USS West Gate

USS West Gate has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 3, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War I task force

Ships

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 articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Huh?

This paragraph confuses me:

At 02:28 on 7 October, while about 250 nautical miles (460 km) south of Halifax,[6] West Gate's steering gear engine jammed, sending the ship veering sharply to the port. The crew put the ship's engines at half speed to try to drop out of the convoy. Lieutenant Spencer, the chief engineer, and his assistant, Lieutenant (j.g.) Hillery, headed to the machinery spaces to see about effecting repairs. At 02:30, men on the bridge sighted the red light from the oncoming American, which had been steaming behind and to the port of West Gate. Though the bridge ordered the engines raised to "full speed ahead" to avoid the collision, there was no time for the engines to respond before American's bow cut into the starboard side of West Gate, near the poop deck.[3][7]

It looks so sweet and innocent, right? Except for this: how does a ship turning to port (LEFT) get hit on its starboard (RIGHT) side by a ship that was coming up from behind/LEFT of it...? (left because the ship was turning...) Cheers! —the_ed 17— 05:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That thought had occurred to me as well. It's possible (but doesn't seem likely given the time frame) that West Gate had circled about 3/4 of a turn. The main source says American was behind, but didn't necessarily say immediately behind. And the source also says that the ships were having trouble maintaining stations in the 'dark and stormy night'. Throw in some zig-zagging, which was used in WWI convoys, and you potentially have the situation above... and confusion. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Still, that seems improbable, but I guess that there are no other sources....whatever. =) Cheers! —the_ed 17— 19:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS West Gate (ID-3216)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and I should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
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:

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Nice job, and drop me a note if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]