Talk:Imperatritsa Mariya-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Design and development, "of the Gangut class battleships then building for the Baltic Fleet." Should this be "then being built"?

   Yes.

   • Same, "gave 'preliminary' orders". Why is preliminary in quotes?

   Deleted.

   • General characteristics: The first paragraph is, I think, talking about the class as a whole all the way through. However, she/her is used twice, which would seem to refer to a single ship.

   Fixed.

   • General characteristics, "The engine room was divided by two longitudinal bulkheads a double bottom was provided." What?

   Fixed

   • Armament, "No anti-aircraft (AA) armament was originally fitted, however, the Naval Ministry specified that four 37-caliber 4-inch (102 mm) guns of a new design were to be fitted in October 1916, but they never entered service." Rambling sentence, with both a however and a but in it.

   See how it reads now.

   • Fire control section. First, the section title is rather confusing, because at first I really thought it meant controlling fires on board the ship. Second, the section is really short. Since it mainly seems to have to do with gun stuff, why not add it to the Armament section?
   • Service history section. The second and third sections start with the Russian translation, which looks a little odd. Could these be started with the English version, then the Russian translation, modeling the first section?

   Done

   • Imperator Aleksander III, "The Finns were forced to surrender three of the 12-inch guns in 1944 to the Soviets which had been used to repair railway guns that had fallen into Finnish hands in 1941 and which were used by the Soviets until the 1990s." This sentence is rather long and rambling, and I'm really not sure of everything it's trying to say.

   Reworked, how does it read now?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

Overall, a nice article, with just a few prose issues that need to be worked out. Let me know if you have any questions! Dana boomer (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I am now passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)