Talk:Soviet cruiser Kalinin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• Can the lead be expanded to discuss the ships design and armaments more clearly? It should ahvea brief summary of the ships capabilities in addition to the service history.

• Normally I reserve that sort of stuff for the class article, but there's not a whole lot else here to work with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• An awful lot of sentences start with "she", which makes it sound like a prose list. Can you try some synonyms to avoid the repetition?

• A bit of a persistant problem of mine, n'est-ce pas?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It would be nice, although not essential if you could provide a couple of sentences addressing the class up to Kalinin's construction - what was their intended role?

• This will probably have to wait until I get home next week to access my sources. But from what I remember the Soviets really didn't analyze in detail their role. They just knew that they needed modern cruisers and shopped around for a decent design.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• It would be helpful for the geographically deficient like myself if you make it clear that this ship was constructed on the Pacific coast of Russia.

• Added a sentence in the lead covering this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

OK, although I think the lead would benefit from further expansion, and it would be nice to have information about Soviet design intentions if available, I am happy to pass this as GA now. Well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)