Talk:Russian frigate General Admiral

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian frigate General Admiral/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There's a lot of "en route"s in the article. Can you mix up the wording a bit?

   Can you play with the {{ship}} template for Pervenetz so just the ship's name is the link? Red links are fine, but that looks pretty ugly right now.

   Done and done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   Better now. Parsecboy (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I know this is a pretty obscure ship, but right now you've only used one source. Is there any mention of the ship in old naval annuals or the like? Note: I removed Conways from the reference list as it wasn't being used in the article.

   Found one reference in the Times of note. Being scrapped in 1870 she predates just about every naval annual, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   I thought as much, though I have seen articles in some of those periodicals about Civil War-era ships (can't think of any examples, but I've seen them while trawling for images). Parsecboy (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There's not much holding this up, nice work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   Passing now. Parsecboy (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)