Talk:Russian battleship Poltava (1911)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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.:

   Second opinion requested.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Checking for edit warring.

Reviewer: WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 22:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Comment the link to Gangut is a dablink. Can you address that? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 22:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit wars?! Hardly anyone's edited the article in months.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sturm. What seems to resemble an edit war. The other contributor, Jo0de, was working in tandem with Sturm. Nothing else seems to pop up as anythign close to an EW. Buggie111 (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)