Talk:Russian battleship Tri Sviatitelia/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Nothing major, but in the refit section, you have "4.7-inch" but "six-inch" in the same sentence; it should probably be "6-inch" for parallel structure.
- Done.
- Nothing major, but in the refit section, you have "4.7-inch" but "six-inch" in the same sentence; it should probably be "6-inch" for parallel structure.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- You might try looking at Halpern for more information on the ship's WWI service. I don't know if there's anything else useful, but it's worth a look. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Don't have Halpern, but it's pretty unlikely that McLaughlin and Nekrasov missed anything of significance.
- I'll have a look through after work tonight. Parsecboy (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- That would be great if you could.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- There indeed was a bit to add. Parsecboy (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- That would be great if you could.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll have a look through after work tonight. Parsecboy (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Don't have Halpern, but it's pretty unlikely that McLaughlin and Nekrasov missed anything of significance.
- You might try looking at Halpern for more information on the ship's WWI service. I don't know if there's anything else useful, but it's worth a look. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- The first paragraph in the service history section barely mentions this ship. Can you fix that?
- Do you mean the WWI section?
- Yeah. Parsecboy (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Done.
- Yeah. Parsecboy (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean the WWI section?
- You might add an explanation for the seizure of the ships by the Allies at the end of WWI (namely, the German surrender).
- Done.
- The first paragraph in the service history section barely mentions this ship. Can you fix that?
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- The lead image needs a source and publication date, or else a fair-use rationale. I know, it's a pain in the ass.
- Indeed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- The lead image needs a source and publication date, or else a fair-use rationale. I know, it's a pain in the ass.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Everything looks good now, so I'll pass the article. Parsecboy (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: