Talk:Russian battleship Imperator Pavel I
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic GA Review
 | Russian battleship Imperator Pavel I has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 26, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the disgruntled sailors of the Russian battleship Imperator Pavel I instigated the 1917 mutiny of the Baltic Fleet in Helsinki? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian battleship Imperator Pavel I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- The line about her commissioning and trials should be reversed, i.e., "the ship was commissioned in March 1911 but did not complete sea trials until..."
- Let me double-check McLaughlin, but I think that it is correct as written.
- Oh, I wasn't saying it was wrong, I was commenting on the chronological order - it sounds odd to say "in November I did xxxxxx but last July I did xxxxxxx." The sentence would flow better if you put it in chronological order. Parsecboy (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, rewritten.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I wasn't saying it was wrong, I was commenting on the chronological order - it sounds odd to say "in November I did xxxxxx but last July I did xxxxxxx." The sentence would flow better if you put it in chronological order. Parsecboy (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Let me double-check McLaughlin, but I think that it is correct as written.
- The line about her commissioning and trials should be reversed, i.e., "the ship was commissioned in March 1911 but did not complete sea trials until..."
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Halpern has a bit on page 190 that should be incorporated
- Lemme check when I get home.
- Have you had a look at this yet? Parsecboy (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Have you had a look at this yet? Parsecboy (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Lemme check when I get home.
- Since McLaughlin is the only source cited, the others should be moved to a "further reading" section.
- Done.
- Halpern has a bit on page 190 that should be incorporated
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)