Jump to content

Talk:Russian battleship Ekaterina II/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: WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 04:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Great work. Perhaps more sources, however.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Great prose and grammar!
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I would like a couple more sources, although not necessary.
    Outside of Russian-language sources there's not much more of use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If he wants some, I can go get some. I have Red Mutiny, which would only be ambigous to the current stuff, and some russian books. Buggie111 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added in some more stuff. Buggie111 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work, Sturm. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 21:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Excellent on this point.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV throughout.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No edit wars evident on history.
  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):
    All with appropriate fair use rationales and excellent descriptive captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Passed. Good work.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_battleship_Ekaterina_II/GA1&oldid=388766851"