Talk:Russian battleship Oslyabya/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 00:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Guess I'll take this one too! Should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • The second note has me a little confused. So Forczyk and McLaughlin say that 471 men went down? And how many were rescued? Campbell says the numbers were 385 rescued and 514 men down? This is a pretty significant difference between the three sources - is there any reason for the discrepancy? Also, the first two clauses might be better connected by an "and", rather than a "but".

   • Rewrote it to clarify that Campbell is the only one with a number for survivors, but his number of lost doesn't match the other two. No idea why.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • The external link is dead.
   • Chesneau is in references, but not notes.
   • Same for Warner. Do either of these have any new information?

   • Replaced the link with a Commons link. Moved both books down to Further reading.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   • For File:Russian battleship Oslyabya 01.jpg we need to know when it was first published, to make the tag legit

   • Neither image on Commons is properly sourced. Should I use a picture of one of her sisters?

   • Is it possible to get better sourcing for either image? If not, a properly sourced picture of a sister ship would be better than nothing. Dana boomer (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

   • Not possible to get better sourcing, picture swapped out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

   • For the new image, is there something I'm missing in the source link? I can't see anything there (or one level back, either, where all of the images of this ship are listed) that gives the author name, first publication date, etc. Is there a contents page or something that gives additional detail? Because, at this point, I can't find the information in the source that backs up the information used for the licensing rationale. The ship images apparently need some serious work - these last few battleship articles that I've reviewed have had some of the poorest image licensing I've seen in a while. (This isn't intended as a criticism of you, more so of Commons for not having better image checks.) Dana boomer (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

   • Nothing on sourcing, but at least it's attributed to Marius Bar, a noted French naval photographer, which would date this photo to 1904. If that's unacceptable, I could use File:IJN Suou.jpg or the line drawing from Brasseys Naval Annual. The Russian ship images are generally very poorly documented and it doesn't help any that the Russians reasserted copyright to all their WW2 images after first letting them go out of copyright.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

   • Is it attributed to Marius Bar in the source? That's the part I couldn't find. If so, we know when he died, so it's good. If not, the Brassey's line drawing has the best sourcing, but the postcard is acceptable. Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

   • The postcard it is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A few niggles with prose, references and the image, so I'm putting the review on hold. Otherwise, a very nice little article. Dana boomer (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good, so now passing to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)