Talk:Kursk submarine disaster/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally quick-fail any nomination that had uncited sentences. This is the case with this nomination. On the basis that these may have been overlooked, I will give the nominator seven days to cite all uncited material, otherwise I will fail the nomination. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the time window to get it fixed. It's been quite a while since I made the GA nom and the article has changed since then. Can you please clarify your statement re: "uncited sentences". There isn't any WP requirement to cite every single sentence. Are you referring to the issue that some paragraphs conclude with uncited sentences? If so, that's likely a result of having made copy edits that moved sentences outside the range of the ref used. If that's the issue, please confirm and I'll strive to re-associate those 14 uncited sentences with their original refs. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 17:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it is the paras concluding with uncited sentences, rather than "uncited sentences, per se". Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I verified and added refs to the end of every paragraph that was missing one, or removed the sentence if I couldn't find the ref. Thanks for your patience. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I will start reviewing asap. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the contractions and delinked the wl with more than one wl, though I think the standard of describing instances of two wikilinks as "overlinked" is a bit excessive. I also fixed a couple of unformatted references to archived sources that someone added which were badly formatted. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 23:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the usual standard is one link in the lead (if appropriate), and one in the body. What I'm really concerned about is the size/readability issue, and the associated need for the article to be more concise. I appreciate it is an infamous event and there is a fair amount of complexity and technical material involved, but I'm not sure the size can be justified against criteria 1a. Given its length and the amount of time that will be involved in reviewing it, I think I'll ask for a second opinion before embarking on a detailed review. I've posted the request here, feel free to comment on the thread. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reorganized the article and consolidated details, though this didn't reduce the size. I'll resubmit this for GA a bit later. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 21:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	there are a number of contractions outside of quotations, ie didn't, wouldn't etc. They should all be expanded unless in quotations. Done the article size is a bit of a worry, at 64K it is probably WP:TOOBIG. Some sections could be more concise. I am failing the article on the prose and conciseness, firstly, because the excessive amount of pretty minor detail makes it very difficult to read, secondly because it is repetitive in parts. It gives the impression that some sections have been written in isolation from the rest. I suggest taking a more chronological rather than thematic approach to the material. Other ideas may be raised through a peer review. I've reorganized the article and summarized some sections. It didn't reduce the size any but I believe it's more readable. Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Type 65 torpedo, Vladimir Kuroyedov, Black Sea, Ilya Klebanov, tnt-equivalent, blast wave, ballast tank, bulkhead (partition), G-force, Marine salvage, P-700 Granit, Pravda, Gennady Lyachin, conning tower are all overlinked Done
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Unnecessary detail throughout Consolidated related info. Done
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I have concerns about the licensing of some images and the use of NFRs, I suggest you go right through all the image licensing and check it is all valid, and even get advice from WP:IMAGEHELP Verified the images are properly licensed and NFR is properly applied to the images. Done
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Failing on criteria 1a., not having completed a full review against all criteria. I strongly recommend this article is taken to peer review and through a Guild copyedit before re-nominating for GA. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]