Talk:Océan-class ironclad/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Fourth paragraph of the Armament section is a fragment, and should be up-merged to previous paragraph.
Done

Is Kronstadt the name of a ship, or did you mean to wikilink it instead to the port?
Oops.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
First paragraph of Armament section is uncited.
Oops.

Can you put the single-use cites into the References for consistency?
Done
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A couple of minor points to clarify, and then this can be passed. Skinny87 (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't expect another batch of reviews so quickly; it will be slim pickings from here on out, I'm afraid.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]