Jump to content

Talk:Russian battleship Imperator Pavel I/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The line about her commissioning and trials should be reversed, i.e., "the ship was commissioned in March 1911 but did not complete sea trials until..."
    Let me double-check McLaughlin, but I think that it is correct as written.
    Oh, I wasn't saying it was wrong, I was commenting on the chronological order - it sounds odd to say "in November I did xxxxxx but last July I did xxxxxxx." The sentence would flow better if you put it in chronological order. Parsecboy (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, rewritten.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Halpern has a bit on page 190 that should be incorporated
    Lemme check when I get home.
    Have you had a look at this yet? Parsecboy (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since McLaughlin is the only source cited, the others should be moved to a "further reading" section.
    Done.
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The article is in pretty good shape, just a few things that need fixing. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]