Talk:Russian monitor Vitse-admiral Popov

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian monitor Vitse-admiral Popov/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 01:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

What a fun looking little ship... though I can't imagine the difficulty in making her actually go anywhere.

• My first and major comment is that the lead calls her one of the worst warships ever built, and then this is never mentioned again. If she's that bad, there has to be a source or two to discuss her unusual legacy. Indeed, you list Preston in the bibliography, but never use the work in your citations.
  • It appears that I rushed the nom on this. Should be good now.
• Last paragraph as the article stands lacks any sourcing at all?
• Now to picking nits: "roubles" or "rubles", but not both.
• Any idea what "popovka" translates to?
  • Clarified.
• "Her bluff hull form" Might be worth linking bluff to here?
  • Excellent idea.
• "So much so that it took 40–45 minutes" Feels like a continuation of the prior sentence, not a well-written sentence on its own.
  • Agreed, attached it to the prior sentence with a semi-colon.
• " two 37-millimetre (1.5 in) quick-firing Hotchkiss five-barreled revolving cannon." Two of them, so, cannons?
  • Not necessarily, cannon, like aircraft, is both singular and plural.

That's all I've got, the first two are the big ones. Courcelles (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Looks good, passing. Courcelles (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)