Talk:Russian frigate General Admiral/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- There's a lot of "en route"s in the article. Can you mix up the wording a bit?
- Can you play with the {{ship}} template for Pervenetz so just the ship's name is the link? Red links are fine, but that looks pretty ugly right now.
- Done and done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Better now. Parsecboy (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Done and done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- I know this is a pretty obscure ship, but right now you've only used one source. Is there any mention of the ship in old naval annuals or the like? Note: I removed Conways from the reference list as it wasn't being used in the article.
- Found one reference in the Times of note. Being scrapped in 1870 she predates just about every naval annual, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I thought as much, though I have seen articles in some of those periodicals about Civil War-era ships (can't think of any examples, but I've seen them while trawling for images). Parsecboy (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Found one reference in the Times of note. Being scrapped in 1870 she predates just about every naval annual, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I know this is a pretty obscure ship, but right now you've only used one source. Is there any mention of the ship in old naval annuals or the like? Note: I removed Conways from the reference list as it wasn't being used in the article.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- There's not much holding this up, nice work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Passing now. Parsecboy (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- There's not much holding this up, nice work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: