Talk:Borodino-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 02:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals several issues with reference consolidation:
  • McLaughlin, p. 136 Multiple references contain the same content
  • Campbell, p. 187 Multiple references contain the same content
  • McLaughlin, p. 136 Multiple references are using the same name
  • c7 Multiple references are using the same name
    • I think that I've fixed these. Let me know if I've missed one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
• Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action req'd).
• Alt text: Images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copy violations or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: a few duplicate links which should be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
  • quick-firing
  • armor belt
  • magazine
  • Nikolai Nebogatov
  • flagship
    • These are all fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Possible missing word here: "The first four ships were finished after the start of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05 and among the ships ordered to sail from the Baltic Sea to the Far East to relieve the Pacific Squadron besieged by the Japanese in Port Arthur." Should it be: "The first four ships were finished after the start of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05 and were among the ships ordered to sail from the Baltic Sea to the Far East to relieve the Pacific Squadron besieged by the Japanese in Port Arthur."
    • Yes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wording here: "This damage forced the ship to scuttle herself...", would "This damage forced the ship to be scuttled..." work better? (not sure how a ship can scuttle itself).
    • A fair amount of anthropomorphization is acceptable for ships, but that exceeds the limit.
      • That's quite a word! Anotherclown (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "The ships carried four 381-millimetre (15.0 in) torpedo tubes; two of these were mounted above water in the bow and stern, and the two broadside underwater tubes were located near the forward 12-inch magazine." Its a suggestion only but I think this might work better as: "The ships carried four 381-millimetre (15.0 in) torpedo tubes, two of which were mounted above water in the bow and stern, while the two broadside underwater tubes were located near the forward 12-inch magazine."
    • Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "...and the combined force sailed for Vladivostok on 14 May...", Vladivostok should be wikilinked at first use, not here.
    • Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Missing word here too I think: "... Nikolai Bukhvostov, decided to duplicate Retvizan's at the Battle of the Yellow Sea..." Retvizan's what?
    • Fixed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Tense here perhaps: "...both the ship's 12-inch gun turrets had been knocked out." Consider instead: "...both the ship's 12-inch gun turrets were knocked out."
    • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This sentence is a little repetitive: "During World War I, the ship participated in the Siege of Tsingtao in August–November 1914[38] and supported Japanese troops as the flagship of the Japanese Intervention Squadron in Vladivostok in 1918 when the Japanese intervened in the Russian Civil War." (You seem to over use "Japanese" to me). Perhaps reword a little?
    • How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • All major points cited using WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR.
  • Some minor presentation issues with refs:
    • "Nekrasov, George M. (2004). Expendable Glory: A Russian Battleship in the Baltic, 1915–1917. East European monographs 636". Should "monographs" be capitalized?
    • Inconsistency in places you abbrev MD in another you write Maryland in full.
    • Forczyk, Robert (2009). Russian Battleship vs Japanese Battleship, Yellow Sea 1904–05. Osprey. ISBN 978-1-84603-330-8. Lacks place of publishing.
      • All fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
  • "He completed his new design in July/August..." of what year?
    • Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

  • No issues here.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• 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:

  • Images are all PD or licensed and seem appropriate to the article.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Overall quite good. Just a few minor prose and MOS issues highlighted above to deal with / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Passing now. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)