Talk:Russian battleship Imperator Aleksandr III (1901)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Buggie111 (talk · contribs) 21:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Few points:
lead: all hands-entire crew service paragraph: don't know if you want to put colons in between the time. The last sentence is especially strange "...but did not sink until 1907, taking all hands with her." I thought it was referring to 1907 AD, for a moment there. also, consider changing all hands to entire crew, once again. Don't know how many readers will understand that. |
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Picture of the obelisk is messing up the reflist, with the numbers for the refs being placed on the picture. Gotta be fixed, though I'm puzzled as to how to do that. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | NPH (no problems here). |
|
|
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). | NPH |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | NPH |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Obelisk section seems a bit skimpy, but I couldn't find anything back a couple of years ago. Will try to find a Russian source. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | NPH |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | NPH |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | NPH |
| 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. | NPH |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | NPH |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Besides the errors above, all is well. Should pass easily. Buggie111 (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC) |
All done. The problem with the refs and the obelisk picture might be a function of your screen width; it looks fine on my computer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)