Talk:Evstafi-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

Looks good so far, a couple of points though:

• I have made a few MOS edits (please confirm you are happy with them);
• Perhaps some sub headings might be added to the World War I section?  Done
  • Added one.
• The prose in the first paragraph of the World War I section seems a little difficult. For instance: "Evstafi, as the newest ship in the Black Sea Fleet, was the flagship of Vice Admiral Andrei Eberhardt, commanding the fleet, for the first year or so of World War I." I'm a bit confused, was Evstafi the flag ship for the first year or so, or was Eberhardt the commander for that period?  Done
  • Both actually, but I've deleted the bit about commanding the fleet as moderately redundant.
• Also "Two weeks after the Russian declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire on 2 November 1914, the Black Sea Fleet, comprising the pre-dreadnoughts Evstafi, Ioann Zlatoust, Pantelimon, Rostislav, Tri Sviatitelia, and three cruisers were escorted by three destroyers and 11 torpedo boats set out on 15 November to bombard Trebizond." This sentence seems quite long, and has some issues with punctuation I think. May be it could be split or at least reworded?  Done
  • Split and reworded. How does it read now?
    • Looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Personally I think this first para is a little long and could possibly be split also.  Done
  • Split as well.
• You have used the word 'inaccurate' twice in two sentences in the 2nd para of the World War I section, maybe reword?  Done
  • Second use changed to incorrect.
• Is the word 'predreadnought' or 'pre-dreadnought' (in the third paragraph of the World War I section)?  Done
  • Fixed
• The third paragraph is problematic - IMO it should be split. For instance the first sentence should be merged with the para above it and the second sentence should form the basis of another (expanded) paragraph on the 9 January 1915 battle with Breslau and the Ottoman cruiser Hamidiye. Could more info be added about this encounter?
  • This is a problem. I agree with you that the first sentence could be added to the previous paragraph, but there's nothing more that I can add to the encounter on 9 January. It barely deserves any consideration as a battle as nothing more happened than described. This would make it a two-sentence paragraph, not ideal.  Not done
    • No worries, I can accept that. Anotherclown (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• In the fourth paragraph of the World War I section, 'enemy' could possibly be reworded as 'German'.  Done
  • OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

More to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [[1]]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [[2]]

Technical review

• Disambiguations: None found - [3]
• Linkrot: There is one deadlink - [4]
• Alt text: Image lacks alt text. Although this is not a requirement for GA, you might consider adding it in.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• IMO it is well written and MOS compliant.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• All information is cited to reliable sources and there is no original research that I can find.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Major aspects are covered.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is written from a neutral POV, is a fair representation of events and uses all major works available.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• Although there has been considerable recent work, the article is not subject to an edit war.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

• Image are appropriate for the article, and are tagged and captioned;
• Image is a non-free image, but has an appropriate free-use rationale.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• Looks good, and I am happy to promote to GA. Well done. As I said above there is one dead link, and if you could fix the dead link though that would be appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)