Talk:Russian battleship Imperator Pavel I/GA1

GA Review

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

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]