Talk:Russian battleship Sinop/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Initial comments
[edit]- No citation errors, no dab links, external links check out (no action req);
- I have made a couple of changes, please check to see that you are happy with them;
- They're fine, although I'm not sure that 1900s needs to be linked.
- Don't think I linked 1900s (did I?), I agree there is no need for that. Anotherclown (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- They're fine, although I'm not sure that 1900s needs to be linked.
- Use of the word 'she' in the lead and throughout the article is a little repetitive;
- A persistent problem of mine. I think that I've mixed things up better now.
- Yep, looks fine. Anotherclown (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- A persistent problem of mine. I think that I've mixed things up better now.
- I think this phrase (in the last para of the history section) could be reworded: "but the fleet never did this." Maybe.... 'however this operation never took place.' or something similar.
- How does it read now?
- Looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- How does it read now?
- This sentence is a fairly bold statement: "...as they abandoned the Whites." Maybe reword to avoid any possible POV issues?
- It's pretty hard to see it as anything else since the Brits withdrew all support and ships from the Whites in the south with very little notice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, telling it like it was... but maybe it could be 'softened'... perhaps 'withdrew support for the Whites' or something similar. Anotherclown (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's pretty hard to see it as anything else since the Brits withdrew all support and ships from the Whites in the south with very little notice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a little concerned about the blog you have used as ref 13 (Ringis)... can you add something else to back it up to establish that it is a reliable source?
- It's not a blog at all. It's an online newspaper or somesuch. I looked for more info from Ballard, but he has almost nothing on it. I did confirm that he made an expedition to the Black Sea at that time, but I think that the Ukrainians are the ones pushing the ID as Sinop. But since I don't know how the data was divided up, I can't say if he agrees with them or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- No worries, happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a blog at all. It's an online newspaper or somesuch. I looked for more info from Ballard, but he has almost nothing on it. I did confirm that he made an expedition to the Black Sea at that time, but I think that the Ukrainians are the ones pushing the ID as Sinop. But since I don't know how the data was divided up, I can't say if he agrees with them or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Overall, this is a good article with just a couple of minor issues to fix before I intend on passing. Anotherclown (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Overall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- All issues resolved, plus you picked up a couple of MOS issues I missed (I will leave the last point re the British and the Whites up to you). IMO this is a good article and I'm happy to promote it. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)