Talk:Russian battleship Tri Sviatitelia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. 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.

2. 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)

3. 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.

   You might add an explanation for the seizure of the ships by the Allies at the end of WWI (namely, the German surrender).

   Done.

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):

   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)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Everything looks good now, so I'll pass the article. Parsecboy (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)