Talk:Russian cruiser Rossia/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   You've got a mixture of AE and BE (i.e., "calibre" but "armor")

   Think I caught them all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Do we know what the cruising speed on just the central shaft is? Is it the 10kn mentioned in her range? If so, this could be made clearer.

   Navweaps has information on torpedoes that might be used to flesh out the last bit in the armament section. But, if you don't know the model carried on the ship that's fine too. I've had that problem before.

   Good idea, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   What about the speed for the cruising engine? Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   Not specified in my sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   Nothing more you can do then. Parsecboy (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   The first two images don't appear to have a date of publication, so we can't determine whether they're PD or not. The images you uploaded are fine.

   Replaced with fair-use images.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   Should be ok now. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Everything else looks pretty good, excellent work! Parsecboy (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)