This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / World War II 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 Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force North American military history task force United States military history task force World War II 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 National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! May you and your family have a blessed day!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll step in and focus on this article to improve it as much as possible - of course, others are more than welcome to join. GGOTCC (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Running list of helpful information, to be expanded:

- Before hitting A-grade, this article should meet GA status first. One of the most important aspects regards the sources - as of now, the article heavily relies on websites. Instead, it would be helpful to focus on written texts from Archive.org (search "Dixie Arrow" for texts) for more reliable information.

- My current mark of shame, User:GGOTCC/sandbox, is an article with a shocking similarity. While the refrence system is shot and is too long, it would be very benificial to see what additional information (ie. on the U-boat, the ship's design, economic context, quotes) can be added to this article. GGOTCC (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- China Arrow and India Arrow are GA articles, and have great sources for this project.

- IMO, it may be best to first introduce the Arrow-class and its design before stating that the last was laid down as hull No # and named Dixie Arrow. I'm poking around now to see how much info I can dig up on the topic.

- Per WP:CITEKILL, the same simple information is refrenced by several diffrent sources. There is no need to cite several texts for a simple and undisputed fact. Instead, it would be best to cite the most reputable source, such as a book.

- Information in the Infobox should either be cited or mentioned by name in the text itself

- Please cite page numbers for books. You can use Template:RP to add the page number without needing to make a new citation.

Still, the article looks to be in good shape! With some effort, it can certainly be GA material! GGOTCC (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the books that I cite (minus War Zone, which I own) were taken from the National Register of Historic Places application. It cites books in-text, which is where I have cited them here, but I unfortunately do not have specific page numbers from said books, nor do I have the time or money to go digging around to find copies of the books to look for myself. I'll see if I can be more specific in the future if I am in that capacity. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As another note before I forget: The lead of the article (and the construction portion) says it was ordered by Socony-Vacuum, yet the ship was used by Standard Transportation Company. From my research, ownership transferred in 1931. I feel like we're missing something in this situation, like maybe STC was a subsidiary of Socony-Vacuum? I'm gonna try to do some digging on STC to see what I can find to hopefully clear this up. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I've found another good source here. Lloyd's of London's reigsters has a page full of documents on Dixie Arrow! https://hec.lrfoundation.org.uk/archive-library/ships/dixie-arrow-1921/search/ship-type:tanker-11791/page/26/view-as/list -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good find! No worries about the page number if you can't find which one you are reading. While I do not have an exact source for this, it was very common to have a subsidary like STC operate a coperation's tankers for liability issues. And thanks for correcting a few of my mistakes, this article looks even better! GGOTCC (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found an article for the ship in German which we could add to the list of the same page in different languages (alas, I don't know how to do that). I've added tons of more sources and some more tidbits to the article in the meantime. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! You can link multiple languages of the same topic via Wikidata, but I'll do that now. GGOTCC (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past few days I added more sources, new info in the service segment, and firsthand accounts from War Zone (I finally found the book, lol). I feel this is enough to warrant a re-examination of the article's status (and maybe bump it up to GA), but I'm not quite sure how that happens (if it's random, or if it's at a contributor's request). I can't wait to see where this article goes next. Btw, if you can help find even more sources, that'd be greatly appreciated. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I'll see what else I can add.

For GA status, you can see information here and he simple process to nominate an article here. For an article to reach GA status, it would be nominated and added to a que for review. Based on the outcome of the review, it will pass or fail. But first, I recomend you to see how other reviews of ship articles go and see any possible improvments here.

Since the list of nominated warfare articles are backed up, it could take months for someone to review the article, assuming the worst.

I nominated my first GA article in December, and it is still waiting to be reviewed. In the meantime, I preformed GA reviews of other articles to learn the ropes and make improvments to my own article. I recomend you do the same.

Does this make sense? GGOTCC (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does! Thank you so much for all your help on this. Btw, if I could get the peer review request archived/cancelled/ended or whatever (not sure what the proper term here is), that'd be great. I think it's largely a finished article, my only gripe being that not tons of info was found for the ship's service (funnily enough, source 11 mentions this and says that the ship's service was not very notable and quite routine). Once again, thank you for all of your help! -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I can go find a template to archive this conversation... GGOTCC (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhoenixCaelestis Checking back on the page in a while, and I love to see your progress! One thing to keep in mind is to have the lead section be an appropiate length. For an article like this, 3-4 paragraphs as the lead will be appropiate. I wanted to being it up now before the GA reviewer does GGOTCC 20:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ough, three to four? Alright, thanks for the heads up. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 22:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEADLENGTH deals with this matter. One page (I forget which) has a recomended # of paragraphs per length of article, but the lead section should reflect the level of detail of each section. GGOTCC 00:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, I've tried to expand the lead and I hope that it's sufficient now.

As an unrelated-ish question, is there a rule on how many images is too many for an article? Currently the article has 12 images (not counting the ICS flags), which I would be willing to trim down by removing the torpedo strike and USS Tarbell images, and maybe the image of the tanker on fire. However, my main concern then is that readers are merely met with a massive block of text – IMO the images help break this up and make the article less stressful to read. Do you have any thoughts on that matter? PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhoenixCaelestis Exelent question! Right now, I think the image selection is great. Each image relates to the text while sharing new information. Each one is unqiue and does not impede readability. On my screen, the text warps fine and the images don't hang off at the end. You can do whatever you like, but the images are certainly a strong suit of the article. GGOTCC 18:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what specifically I should improve on this article to get it up to an even better rating than it is now. Any sort of feedback is appreciated. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I copy-edited and rearranged the lead a bit, removed some details, changed some words. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:SS Dixie Arrow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PhoenixCaelestis (talk · contribs) 13:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Yummifruitbat (talk · contribs) 23:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. Happy to discuss any of my comments, and second opinions (including drive-by/unsolicited) are welcome at any point. YFB ¿ 23:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for being willing to do this! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated: 00:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC) by Magicpiano

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

Yes, a well-written article. I made a few minor copyedits while reviewing.

1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

• Lead: good
• Layout: mostly good, see comments  Done
• W2W: no significant concerns
• Fiction: n/a
• Lists: n/a

2) Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

There are quite a lot of sourcing issues, see comments below.

Mostly sorted now, just a couple of points left to tidy up. YFB ¿ 19:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the issues I identified have now been resolved. YFB ¿ 17:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2c) it contains no original research

A few issues of apparent OR highlighted in comments below.

Almost all sorted now. YFB ¿ 19:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All issues identified are now resolved. YFB ¿ 17:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

The article draws quite heavily from the NRHP registration document. This document is likely in the public domain as a work produced by an officer of the US federal government (the NOAA). The copyvio detector gives a 56.3% score; most of the similarities are names of things, but there are a few incidences of chunks of sentences that are identical, and a few inline direct quotes that might be better if paraphrased.

If you could give me a few examples then I'd be more than happy to change them.

Sure, you can view the output of the copyvio detector here: [1]; bits that I thought might be better paraphrased included "since their design of being both a general cargo carrier and bulk oil carrier proved to be versatile and efficient" for example.

I quite honestly was at a loss on how to paraphrase it which is why I simply put it in quotes. I'll check out the link more in detail tonight and tomorrow and will make edits accordingly.

Between us I think we've sorted all these now. YFB ¿ 19:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

Good breadth, and the content seems well balanced.

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

No concerns.

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

Yes

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

No concern about content disputes, but you have made about 20 edits to the article since I started reviewing, some of them pretty substantial. I'd be grateful if you could hold off for a bit while I complete the review (with the exception of edits directly responding to my comments). It's not the shortest article and having it changing all the time is making it a little difficult to keep track.

I'll refrain from making changes unless you specifically suggest stuff here, my apologies.

All good :) YFB ¿ 19:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

A few issues, see below.

The images with copyright queries have been removed. A couple of them might be suitable to add back with an appropriate fair use justification. YFB ¿ 17:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Good use of media with informative captions.

Overall:

Thanks PhoenixCaelestis for this thoroughly-researched and interesting article. As you can see I'm gradually working through the review, which I'll aim to complete this week.

OK, this turned into a little bit of a marathon but I think I am all done. I'll pop this on hold for 7 days, given the pace of responses so far I suspect you won't need that long to get it over the line. Nice work and thanks for your patience with a long and detailed review! YFB ¿ 19:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - it's been slow going, but I think I now know what to expect going into any future GA reviews. Thanks for sticking with this! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 21:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My review is complete and all the issues I identified have been satisfactorily resolved. I'm very pleased to pass SS Dixie Arrow as a Wikipedia Good Article

This was a long and detailed review, and I'm sorry if it felt a little exhausting—because I found quite a few sourcing issues early in the review, I found it necessary to validate the content in more detail than would typically happen with a spot-check. For future nominations, I think it would pay dividends to do a thorough check on the sourcing—particularly regarding text-source integrity—prior to submission, as that'll probably result in an easier review experience. I appreciated your patience in working through the issues, and your responsiveness to feedback. Thanks for your contributions, and happy editing :) YFB ¿ 17:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much @Yummifruitbat! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 18:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general the article is has a good, logical structure with a sensible section/sub-section hierarchy.

I do feel though that the split of content between the end of 'Aftermath' and the start of 'Wreck' is odd and unhelpful to readers. I attempted to fix this by moving a couple of paragraphs from 'Wreck' up into the previous section, but you reverted.

As currently structured, you have a long section entitled 'Sinking' which does not describe the part where the vessel actually sank; and a section entitled 'Aftermath' which still doesn't describe the actual point of sinking but does cover events that took place from a few days up to three years later (the transport of the survivors, the interviewing of some of them by the FBI etc., as well as the escape of the U-boat all the way back to France followed by the rest of its career and eventual scuttling). Then in the first paragraph of 'Wreck' we're back to the day of the attack itself with the vessel still afloat. Obviously the chronology here is all over the place. In my edit I moved the first two paragraphs of 'Wreck' up to the end of 'Aftermath'. The first paragraph definitely belongs earlier in the flow of the article. I'm less concerned about the second paragraph (1943/44), but to me this also makes more sense under 'Aftermath' since it falls within the same timeframe as the details about the later career of the U-boat, and covers the remainder of the significant events that took place during the war itself.

I'll move the first half of the pre-modern era to the sinking section.

 Done

The lead gives a good summary. I think it should mention that the wreck is designated as a NHP and supports marine life.

Added! Y

I'm finding the sentence "The construction of fourteen sister ships was allotted to Socony, but only twelve were ever ordered—two of them were never built." difficult to interpret. What does 'allotted' mean here - allotted by whom? There are two sources cited at the end of this paragraph but neither of them seem to mention anything about 14 ships. In fact the second source (Gardiner) doesn't appear to mention the Arrow class or Socony, so I'm not sure how it can support anything in that paragraph?

I've tried to made the wording flow better and removed the second source which indeed did not support that. From the NRHP application: "During the fall of 1920 the United States Shipping Board authorized Standard Transportation Company to finance the construction of the DIXIE ARROW, the three other New York Shipbuilding Corporation’s tankers along with four other tankers to be built in Quincy, MA, one at Sparrows Point, MD, and one in San Francisco, CA." I believe I have fixed the wording in both this article and the main one for the whole Arrow-class, though correct me on the former if I am mistaken.

You still mention 14 ships, but the above only covers 10 unless I'm having a counting failure? Do you have a source for the 14?

The paragraph right after that one states "The DIXIE ARROW and the other three New York Shipbuilding Corporation tankers, all constricted [sic] under the same 1920 Shipping Board contract as the DIXIE ARROW, were built as a series of “Arrow” ships for the Standard Transportation Company. Between 1916 and 1921 twelve “Arrow” ships were built that measured roughly the same size. New York Shipbuilding Corporation built eight of them and Bethlehem Steel Company of Quincy, MA built the remaining four." Four of the Arrow-class ships - Standard Arrow, Royal Arrow, Sylvan Arrow, and Broad Arrow - were built before 1920 (the last of these, Broad Arrow, was completed in 1918). So, per my math:

+4 built before 1920

USSB authorized 10

+8 built

2 (Sparrow's Point, San Fransisco) not built

=12

The page following that one in the NRHP form has a chart of the twelve built Arrow-class tankers, along with dates of completion. Hopefully this clears this up.

OK, I think I follow your logic but the NRHP source doesn't explicitly say that the Sparrow's Point or SF ships were to be Arrow class, it just says there was finance for ten tank steamers. Unless you can find a reliable source that says explicitly there were 2 further Arrow ships planned that weren't built, the words to this effect in the article are the wrong side of the OR/SYNTH line in my view. YFB ¿ 13:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know the answer to this, but would the absence of any information about a Socony ship matching the Arrow-class' rough specifications built in Sparrow's Point or San Francisco classify as evidence that the two ships were not built? I'm presently looking through records for ships with the above qualities but I can't seem to find anything. I will update you in some time, though. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I think I found something. I found a tanker called Agwipond that matches the specifications of the Arrow-class.. it looks to be owned by Cities Service (predecessor to CITGO) and it doesn't look like CS was ever bought by Socony.. still looking for a SanFran-built tanker though. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I talked about this on my userpage here, but it would be best to only count the Arrow-class as only being the X-Arrow ships operated by SOCONY and word the article to only mention the number of built sisterships. GGOTCC 20:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the only approach I think can be taken here without getting into original research. Unless a source turns up that says outright that two more Arrow-class ships were planned.YFB ¿ 13:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to just remove this segment in this article to save myself a headache right now, and I'll deal with it later on the main Arrow-class page. sorry if I just wasted your time with all that. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been removed and I'm dealing with it on the page for the main class. I have attempted to make the wording slightly more vague in the construction section to avoid any more issues. Please let me know if this is acceptable. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 15:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, you're going to hate me, but I still don't think that paragraph works. With the sister ships reference the implication is still that there were supposed to be 14 Arrow class ships, and it doesn't look like there is a source that says that directly, or that those other two would have been Arrow class steamers. Even if you lose 'sister' it's still pointing at 14 of the same type of ship. I've no idea if you're right about Agwipond, but you can't use that - it's WP:OR. I do appreciate you've been to a lot of effort over this point but I don't think there's a way to cover this aspect without straying into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, so unfortunately I think you're going to have to settle for the unambiguous fact that 12 were built and leave it at that. Sorry by the way for the piecemeal review, I've had a busy week but will try to cover off the rest of the review ASAP, definitely by end of the weekend. YFB ¿ 19:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to rewrite the first paragraph, and I hope it's resolved. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 20:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few more tweaks to this the other day, if you're happy with how it reads now, we can check this one off. YFB ¿ 12:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good now, though if there's a link to tax offsetting (which I couldn't find, but I may be wrong) I think it should be linked. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find an ideal link for this either. Happy that the wording is accurate though so  Done YFB ¿ 20:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The funnel sat atop the aft superstructure, which was a shelter "designed to carry petroleum in bulk with aft positioned machinery."—I don't think this is right. In the source the full sentence is "DIXIE ARROW was a steel hulled tanker with two masts, two decks, and a shelter designed to carry petroleum in bulk with aft positioned machinery.". I think there's a comma missing, but I am reading this in the sense of "Dixie Arrow had two decks and a shelter deck" and "she was designed to carry petroleum in bulk and her machinery was positioned aft"—not with 'shelter' referring to the aft superstructure, which according to the plans was definitely not designed to carry bulk petroleum (it looks like it contains the galley and crew quarters).

I think you're right with this one, I'll go ahead and fix that

 Done

There are a few sources cited inline here that don't support any of the statements in the foregoing text (even where those statements are true). Specifically:

• Paragraph 2 cited to ref 20 (Nautical Gazette Launching of Dixie Arrow) which doesn't mention the masts, the funnel, the fuel capacity or the range.

Removed Y

• Paragraph 4, 4th sentence (about Lloyds rating) cited to ref 24 (H6 study guide) which doesn't mention Dixie Arrow and doesn't define what 100A1 means
• Same para, last sentence (about sufficiency of mooring equipment) cited to ref 9 (Philedelphia Inquirer Tanker Has Trial) which makes no mention of this at all.

Also in the 4th paragraph, last sentence, there's In the survey's report, it was noted that the tanker had "good and efficient anchoring and mooring equipment." which reads as though the survey actually included those words. From what I can see on the Lloyds Heritage site, it doesn't. I think the use of that language in the NRHP write-up is explaining what sorts of things are required to attain the 100A1 rating, not saying that it was specifically commented upon by Lloyds in their survey of Dixie Arrow.

Sorted now Y

As a general comment, it looks like in several places you've directly cited works that are themselves cited in the NRHP submission—but it looks like you haven't always actually read those sources directly? Per WP:SAYWHERE, you should cite where you got the information, so if the NRHP report cites J. Obscure (1920) and you don't have access to that source, you need to either just cite the NRHP for the info, or use something like "Obscure, J. (1920) cited in Marx & Delgado (2013)".

I think this one might still need some work? Let me know when done :) YFB ¿ 20:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one is finished, and I've left the "Cited in Marx & Delgado (2013)" note in a few of them. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 23:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph of this section, I'm not sure I understand the sourcing of the statement about telegraphic range? The links in refs 25 and 26 seem to point to some sort of Dropbox-like thing on an education platform (Kami), I don't understand why and I think those links are effectively a dead end for most users? I was able to find the same sources online, but the only reference to 800 was the conversion of the frequency (375 kHz) to a wavelength in metres—do you think this is a mixup or is there a source that supports the telegraphic range?

Discussed and reworded, so  Done

It's also not clear to me what "a frequency of 375 kilocycles, which was controlled by the Radio Corporation of America" means, or where that's sourced to? Can't find any mention of it in either source. There's "message account settled by—" as a column in ref 25 with 'R.M.C.A.' (Radiomarine Corporation of America) against the entry for Dixie Arrow, but that doesn't seem like anything to do with frequency governance?

I found the reference to RCA in an earlier copy of the listings, but this is removed now which is fine as not really an important detail and I'm still not sure we know exactly what it means :D YFB ¿ 20:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To address these one by one:

• I've removed source 20.
• Whole of that paragraph is cited to source 1, removed the odd source.
• I'll go through and add the NRHP sources in place of the one-off ones.
• Kami was the platform that I used to access most of these, and regarding most of that telegraph stuff, I tried my best to interpret it but I was pretty much at a loss. Looking at it again, I'd consider it gibberish. If you could lend a hand in rewriting it, that would be great. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 01:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a large portion of the specifications bit was either taken from the NHRP application or written based on bits and pieces of information I found. Your help has been greatly appreciated here, as I 100% skipped over all this when proofreading and editing this article myself prior to the GA review. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 01:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done YFB ¿ 16:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been following this page for a while, this is due to Phoenix constantly rewritting the article. While her commitment is admirable, this means citations are dropped and round up supporting the wrong lines and leaving other sentences without the right refs. Even as a student with a Kami account, I still can't access the files. Kilocycles regards the wave itself (a Kilohertz) and not range. the Radio Corperation of America seems to be regarding the operator or channel, which should be fully explained or removed. I'll see what I can do to help! GGOTCC 01:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also a question to both of you: are the exact numbers for values such as the dynamo and radio nessessary? This may be an WP:EXCESSDETAIL or WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue and trip up the GA review. As a naval architect apprentice (someone who would benifit the most from the richness of the article), the values don't mean anything to me without more context. GGOTCC 01:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree here. Given some of the ambiguities in the sources, I think there a few places where we can avoid a little of the detail and clean things up without losing anything really important to the article. YFB ¿ 12:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's good, I did add a bit to the end of her pre-war service segment noting that KDVT had previously been her radio call sign. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is not easy to follow. I think it's probably worth simplifying significantly and reordering, focused on where she was registered, who was shown in the Lloyds Register as the owner at different periods (ideally I think these should cite the registers themselves, which are available online via Internet Archive or Google Books), and then the fact that the name changes just reflected renaming / restructuring of Socony subsidiaries rather than actual changes of ownership.

I personally don't find this segment confusing, though it's probably because I've read it a hundred times over. If you wish to change this part, feel free to.

I've reworded it to a simpler structure that I think still covers all the main points. Let me know if OK. YFB ¿ 22:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, just fixed an instance of you referring to Dixie Arrow as "it" rather than "she". PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 23:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, apologies, and also for my accidental uses of British English spelling. Turns out I cannot proofread in US English! YFB ¿ 23:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

I'm a bit concerned that the wording of the final paragraph (about flags) strays into OR. The cited sources all seem to be describing the house flags of the different companies at different times - whereas we're saying in Wikivoice that Dixie Arrow flew a specific flag at a specific point, and it's not obvious to me that there's a source to support that. If not, then better to omit.

Removed this bit.  Done

The first paragraph of Interwar period closely paraphrases the NRHP report.

only a handful would remain on that route contradicts the source which says "most of them stayed on that route".

Sorted now Y

The quote in the second paragraph "since their design of being both a general cargo carrier and bulk oil carrier proved to be versatile and efficient." seems to be misplaced chronologically. In the NHRP report that statement refers to Arrow class tankers being brought 'closer to home' in the years leading up to WWII, not in 1923, although it does separately refer to most of the class being switched to domestic routes due to the Great Depression.

Sorted Y

Do you have access to The Mobil Book of Ships (Gordon, 1991)? If not, best not to cite it directly especially in quote form when we can't be sure that's actually the wording used.

Removed Y

Third paragraph of this section, She also carried bunker fuel to New York City, San Francisco, and the Panama Canal Zone for use by transiting vessels needs a source—NRHP says 'might have also delivered bunker fuel to the Panama Canal zone for transiting vessels' which is much less definitive, and doesn't specify the other destinations.

OK now Y

Do you have a source for footnote (a)?

Removed Y

Unlike her service in East Asia, Dixie Arrow solely sailed in ballast when on her voyages towards California. This practice would be continued for the rest of the tanker's service. doesn't seem to be supported by the NRHP, which says "It is likely that during DIXIE ARROW’s return trips to Texas it sailed in ballast with no load". No mention of sailing in ballast to California?

Done Y

Paragraph 4, In 1931, following the merger between Socony and Vacuum... is repetition from the Ownership section.

Reworded it, I'm just using it as a reminder in case people forgot.

Sentence beginning The number of oil tankers steaming closely paraphrases the NRHP.

Fixed, feel free to change it more.

This looks good now  Done

rather than merely stopping over at them on her way to California - any source to support that this was what she was doing previously?

Fixed. Y

which was the largest vessel affected by the storm - probably better to say "largest vessel reported to be damaged" by the storm, since others may well have been affected but not in a newsworthy way.

Done. Y

Final para, beginning On her voyages up and down the East Coast, what is the source for the statement that she carried case oil? Only reference to case oil in NRHP is to a press report from 1925.

Removed Y

The operations of Dixie Arrow were returned to her parent company, Socony-Vacuum, in 1936. With the change that same year that changed a ship's unique four-letter identification from signal letters to a maritime call sign, Dixie Arrow's was changed from MDHC to KDVT, the latter of which had previously been her radio callsign - unclear how this is sourced (change of callsign not mentioned in NRHP or on Wrecksite). I think it is slightly incorrect anyway. MDHC was her code letters but KDVT was listed as her radio callsign on the original Lloyds survey in 1921. According to [2] signal letters were aligned with radio callsigns from 1933 onward (due to the widespread use of radio), and that's confirmed by checking the listings for Dixie Arrow in 1932 [3] and 1933 [4].

Addressing a few points with explanations:

• Removed the direct quote from the Mobil Book of Ships - I do not own it, though I have been attempting to get my hands on a copy of it without much luck.
• Removed the footnote about the Texan ports; it was my misreading of the NHRP document.
• Removed the bit on case oil and the image that went with it.
• I've tried to fix the bit on the radio callsign.

The callsign bit still isn't quite right - her callsign wasn't changed, just her original code letters were replaced by her existing radio callsign in the listings of merchant vessels. YFB ¿ 13:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have further problems with my wording and the like, feel free to elaborate on them. This is slow going but it's been good so far (IMO), working out the kinks I failed to notice. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bearing with me, and sorry that there are a lot of comments. Would you mind indenting your responses / actions taken directly under the relevant comment lines, rather than grouped? Will make it easier to see which ones are done. YFB ¿ 00:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that from now on, sorry. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World War II section

however she was painted grey for camouflage purposes - there are three refs given at the end of this sentence but none of them seem to support this statement.

Removed unsourced. Y

Dixie Arrow was formally assigned to carry petroleum from Texas to New York in order to help the American war effort. - NRHP doesn't seem to say that so directly. The source NRHP cites for "DIXIE ARROW was one of the tankers that were employed to routinely travel back and forth between Texas and northeast states" in the section about PAW, doesn't mention Dixie Arrow (it just talks about what PAW was doing in general).

Tried to rephrase.

It ended up a bit repetitive and still beyond the source. I've amended, let me know if you're happy with it now. YFB ¿ 12:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Though she did not explicitly service foreign Allied war production, it is certainly possible that the tanker's regular petroleum cargo was offloaded and later transferred to other tankers bound for Europe goes beyond what the NRHP source says and seems to be OR.

Think I cleaned that up, let me know though.

I've removed the bit about transatlantic shipping of petroleum as there's no sources to directly indicate that Dixie Arrow was a significant contributor to that, making it WP:UNDUE.

 Done

First paragraph closely paraphrases NRHP to the extent of including some of the same quote from Hickam 1999. I don't actually think the detour into She was described as a good ship to work aboard fits very well into the narrative about the final voyage, if we want to talk about conditions on the ship that might work better in the preceding section.

Removed that bit. Y

86,136 barrels (13,694.5 m3) of crude oil to be used for the Allied war effort - do we have a source for what exactly the crude would be used for? If not, omit.

Sourced for NHRP, but removed the bit on the war effort. Y - the figures are fine, my issue was only with the usage bit.

Despite many ships being in the vicinity wherever she traveled, Dixie Arrow was not officially travelling in a convoy. - source for 'many ships being in the vicinity wherever she travelled'? And 'not officially travelling in a convoy' sounds like she might have been in some sort of unofficial / loose convoy, which also seems like OR.

NHRP states that there was a ship sailing ahead and behind of Dixie Arrow. I think Texas-NY was just a common shipping lane.

Yeah, on that basis—and given there's no source cited for the mention of the other ships in the NHRP—I'd drop the 'Despite' bit of the sentence and just say "Dixie Arrow was not travelling in a convoy. The Coastal Convoy System used by the USN was established in the summer of 1942, nearly three months after Dixie Arrow had sunk." YFB ¿ 13:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 13:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y

Second paragraph of this section closely paraphrases Hickam 1999. This is a bigger deal than close paraphrasing of the NRHP report which is probably public domain - Hickam is a recent book by a private author, in copyright.

I've tried to rephrase that and removed the direct quote.

Still pretty close to Hickam. I've reworked this paragraph to try to avoid copyvio issues.

 Done

stopped a USN patrol boat to request further details implies Johanson wanted more details of the shoals or the 40-fathom curve, but actually Hickam makes clear that he was specifically concerned about a minefield.

Fixed, good catch. Y

As the tanker sailed further up the East Coast, she constantly received messages of SOS and SSSS[b] from ships that had been torpedoed by U-boats - I couldn't find anything to support this in any of the sources?

Removed. Y

As a further precautionary measure, Captain Johanson ordered all of Dixie Arrow's lights to be turned off during the night implies Johanson ordered this in the immediate runup to the sinking, which doesn't seem supported by sources?

It's in my copy of War Zone. "The captain was very conscious about no lights, so the ship was dark every night - completely dark." (P. 109)

Yes, but as written the implication was that he turned the lights off after not getting a response from the Navy. I've reworded.

 Done

the rather fitting nickname is an expression of opinion and doesn't belong in Wikivoice

Removed. Y

General comment - the whole of Final voyage is tonally perhaps a bit too much storytelling and not quite encyclopaedic. I appreciate the sources all have this dramatic tone, but we need to stick to a straight factual version.

Noted.

though the water was thick with oil - in Duffus this is associated with the 'pre-dawn hours' not 0900. Reads a little bit like storytelling colour rather than encyclopaedic description.

Removed. Y

and he rung the warning bell - can't find any support for this in sources? Hickam has 'and sang out a warning'.

Removed. Y

Captain Johanson ... ordered the surviving crew to evacuate the stricken tanker - what's the source for this please?

Removed. Y

Oil leaked from the sinking tanker, which would become subsequently ignited by the torpedoes' explosions. - doesn't make sense, it was only sinking or leaking because of the torpedoes' explosions.

Removed. Y

The liberty ship hull number 1262 was named... - from here to the end of this para would fit better in Aftermath than in the middle of the chronology of the sinking.

I've moved that to sinking, between the survivors being interviewed and U-71. Y

The tanker's starboard side became completely engulfed by fire despite there being almost no wind minutes before - 'despite' onwards is unnecessary.

Removed. Y

The lack of a rescue signal ... - I'd previously copyedited this but couldn't access the cited source at the time; now I can, but I can't find support for this sentence—do you have a page no. please?

Page 90 - "The radio operator and radio had been incinerated.." Other source did not support, so removed.

Yep, sorry, I didn't word this very well. My query was over the sentence The lack of a rescue signal may not have had much effect in any case, as ships steaming up and down the East Coast seldom stopped to assist the survivors of torpedoed vessels, for fear of also being targeted (which I'd copyedited, but the original wording had the same meaning). Cited source is Duffus, but I couldn't find anything along those lines in the section about Dixie Arrow.

It was not in the general section about Dixie Arrow but was a broad remark made earlier in the book.

OK, I thought that might be the case. If you can find a page number ref, that'd be a bonus, but otherwise I think content to leave that as is. YFB ¿ 22:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y

The tanker drifted north ... - during our WP:BRD over the positioning of this para, I'd moved it to Aftermath and you moved it back to Wreck, then you moved it to the end of Sinking. Unfortunately now it's positioned chronologically before all the rescue efforts, which took place much earlier in the day. I still think it needs to go in Aftermath for the time series to make sense - or retitle current 'Sinking' to 'Attack' and make this paragraph its own 'Sinking' section before 'Aftermath'?

Retitled the section to attack and moved it to aftermath.

 Done

the destroyer several depth charges—which killed several of the tanker's crewmen who were floating in the water and did nothing to harm the submarine - missing a word ('dropped'?) and I can't find any source that says the depth charges killed crewmen? That's a pretty inflammatory statement so would need strong sourcing to include. Same goes for and several survivors were either knocked unconscious or killed by the blasts. This whole paragraph is written in a tone that sounds highly critical of Tarbell which is not appropriate for Wikivoice (violates NPOV).

Tried my best to make it sound better and removed the unsourced bits.

 Done

The final paragraph regarding Dione is a close paraphrase of Hickam which introduces some errors / OR.

Attempted to fix, let me know what else should be done if applicable.

I worked this one over a bit more, let me know if happy. YFB ¿ 19:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Not sure what has happened - maybe an edit conflict somewhere? - but somehow the NHRP ref seems to have got swapped with Bertke? Sorry if this was me, I find these ":n" refs really hard to follow in the source and I don't know how to fix it. YFB ¿ 14:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid two edits and that's resolved the problem, but now it's saying that the first entry appears multiple times.. I am unfortunately also at a loss as how to resolve this. I'm pretty busy after this but I'll try and find someone who can help when I return. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll also be away for a while, will aim to pick some of this back up tonight. YFB ¿ 14:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Think I have fixed this now. YFB ¿ 23:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Just re-reading this section to check off some of the comments above, I noticed that the first sentence: Roughly 10 minutes before 09:00 AM EWT (Eastern War Time), in the morning hours of March 26, 1942, Dixie Arrow made her way past both Cape Fear and Cape Lookout, and into Cape Hatteras' infamous Diamond Shoals cannot be correct. It's ~100 miles from Cape Fear to Cape Lookout and about another 70 to the Diamond Shoals. The cited source (:12 / 41) doesn't mention any of this.

Removed. Y

I have checked the copyright tags and status of the included images. Mostly fine, with the following exceptions:

• Blueprint is tagged as public domain due to publication in the US prior to 1930. It has a Lloyd's Register copyright watermark (which I don't think is valid, since Lloyds only scanned it) but my actual concern is I don't think it's likely to count as 'published', as it would presumably have been an internal corporate document not circulated to the general public. Since the author was effectively a corporation I think that means it's deemed to be in copyright until 120 years after creation, which'd be 7 July 2041.

That is, quite frankly, a headache.. I'll remove it.

It might be possible to construct a fair use justification for this one I think. That would allow us to use it but it'd need the correct tags etc.YFB ¿ 23:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed for now, so  Done

• File:Dixiearrow3.jpg says it was taken by John L. Lochhead who according to [5] probably didn't publish his photos and died in 1991, so this will likely be in copyright for a long time yet.

Removed photograph creator.

Um... Sorry not sure I see how that helps unless you're saying someone other than him took the photo? Taking the author attribution off doesn't change the copyright status. If the image is in copyright (which we have reason to think it is) then we can't use it without a fair use rationale, and I think we'd struggle for this one as there are other similar images in the public domain. YFB ¿ 23:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing this one alongside the other two below - I've removed them and I'll try to figure out fair use for the blueprints. I am extremely busy and will be going on a trip starting Saturday so I'd love to try and finish this review by today or tomorrow, if at all possible. I've removed all the copyright-problematic images and I'll deal with them later down on the line. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine. I'll do a quick check through later and hopefully we can close the review out shortly. YFB ¿ 15:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, so  Done

• File:Oscar Chappell.jpg is incorrectly tagged with CC0. Since we don't know who the author is, and it's a personal photo, I don't think we can be confident it was published or that it's out of copyright (term would be life of author + 70 years if unpublished or 70 years from publication).

I did not place the tag, the image comes from the Library of Congress.

OK, but that doesn't mean it's in the public domain - from the LoC website: "As a publicly supported institution, we generally do not own the rights to materials in our collections. You should determine for yourself whether or not an item is protected by copyright or in the public domain, and then satisfy any copyright or use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials from our collections." YFB ¿ 23:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, so  Done

• File:Dixie_Arrow_survivors.jpg is tagged as public domain because created by a US Govt officer - but since the author is unknown I'm not sure how we can know that?

It was obtained through the US national archives.

Same applies as for LoC, just because NARA holds it doesn't mean it's public domain. YFB ¿ 23:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed,  Done