Talk:Russian monitor Bronenosets/GA1

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 02:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA review:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  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 (reference section):   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.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review. All comments have been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • Passed GA. I'm going to pass this because I know you check diligently for sources and I wouldn't know where to start looking for Russian sources ... but please either look for them yourself or ask around; a GA based mostly on one source is IMO a little thin. - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • It is, I agree, but I'm not about to start to try and type the text of the book into an online translator, as crappy as they are, to try and fill out the ship's history. Especially since McLaughlin, who does read Russian, presumably used the book as a source himself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply