Talk:Russian battleship Imperator Pavel I

Russian battleship Imperator Pavel I has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 26, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the disgruntled sailors of the Russian battleship Imperator Pavel I instigated the 1917 mutiny of the Baltic Fleet in Helsinki?

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Military history: Maritime / Russian & Soviet / World War I / Operation Majestic Titan

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	World War I task force
	Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I)

Russia: Technology & engineering / History / Military Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian battleship Imperator Pavel I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

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]
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.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
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]