Talk:Russian ironclad Petropavlovsk/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 22:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Review will commence in a few days. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): 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:
· · ·

Lead & Infobox

Unless it is mentioned within your reference texts, how are you sure the vessel was named for the siege of Petropavlosk and not Petropavlosk? I assume it is mentioned in the given source?

See the first sentence of the Construction and service section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I was/am asking if you can confirm within your sources that the moniker is topical to the siege, as opposed to the city. As I said, I assume you can? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's named for the siege.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Description

Fine here.

Construction and service

I know in most of your previous articles, you mention the location of the ship's scrapping. Is it not possible to in this article? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but it was probably Saint Petersburg. But that's just my guess.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot source this information, that is fine. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)