Talk:Russian battleship Rostislav/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2010 (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:

Comments[edit]

Reference style to be consistent they should all look the same Nos 9 and 15 for example. No 9 Melnikov 2006, p. 4. has a {{.}} at the end while No 15 Silverstone, p. 366 does not.
Fixed
Melnikov 2006 has the year added after the name, while the other authors do not
Fixed
Mixture of dates on cite web ref 18 is formatted Retrieved 15 August 2010. while ref 60 is Retrieved 2010-06-30.
Fixed
In the bibliography Shirokorad does not see to have been used
Moved to further reading.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyed reading this one, some of the battles etc I had never heard of so it was something new. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed GA --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]