Talk:Russian ironclad Kreml

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 17:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll read through and review properly tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

Substantive points:

• "based on the experiences with her sister," - it's not clear here which sister ship this was, or what happened to her.
  • Added sister's name.
• "but her first captain suggested that her fore- and mainmasts be square rigged to take advantage of her more seaworthy hull form." - I'm not sure I understood this. Schooners were perfectly seaworthy vessels, I'd have thought. I might just be missing something here!
  • I suppose it's some sort of esoteric point about the most appropriate type of rig that best suited her slimmer hull form. It's not any more fully explained in my source.

• No problem. I'll keep an eye out for anything in my texts on this. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Minor points:

• " As such, a heavy armament and protection were " - with the "were" coming next here, I'd advise on going for "As such, heavy armament and protection were"
• "and a mean draft of 15 feet" - I'd advise either going for "an average mean draft of 15 feet", or linking "mean" in this context.
  • Mean means average; linked.
• "The ship did not steer well and had "an unpredictable habit of suddenly lurching to one side or another"," Particularly since the citation comes in the next sentence, I'd advise specifying who the quote is from in the main text (e.g. "the historian Stephen Mclaughlin notes that...")
  • Good idea, I should have caught that earlier.
• " the ship received the refurbished horizontal trunk steam engine " - I think this should be "a refurbished horizontal"
  • Ilya Muromets only had one engine, wouldn't that dictate "the" rather than "a" which implies that she had more than one engine to donate?

• I'm not certain enough of my grammar on this one! :) Dank would probably know though. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• "All dates used in this article are New Style" - did this mean to end in a period? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• Gardiner and Watts are in the bibliography, but aren't cited in the text itself. I wasn't sure if this was deliberate (e.g. they are general references backing up some of the points being made) or an error.
  • Moved into a further reading section.
• A minor, sub-GA point, but the cite book formatting is inconsistent; some are using the "last" and "first", other just giving "author" and "editor"; of the latter, Gardiner is given in the format of "first name, second name", McLaughlin in the "second name, first name". Probably needs adjusting before ACR etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

• None found so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Appears neutral at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• File:Pervenets1861-1908.jpg needs a US PD tag. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Yes. I'd have gone for "Kreml's half-sister Pervenets at anchor" myself, but that's a matter of personal preference! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I can sometimes be too terse and I like your formulation better Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)