Talk:Russian monitor Strelets/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 13:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I assess that it meets the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have some comments and suggestions that should first be addressed. Thank you for your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Lede
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the monitor, establishes the monitor's necessary context, and explains why the monitor is otherwise notable.
- The info box for the monitor is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
- For a more comprehensive lede, I would recommend adding some additional content form the "Description" section, perhaps mentioning the ship's displacement or its maximum speed at sea trials.
- The image of Strelets has been released into the public domain and it is therefore acceptable for use in this article.
- I would recommend adding an alternative caption per the guidance outlined at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. If this is not doable with the ship info box template, then please disregard this recommendation.
- While a wiki-link to Streltsy is listed as the monitor's namesake in the info box, there is no statement below in the prose with an inline citation. I would recommend incorporating this below into the "Description" section with an inline citation.
- The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
Description
- Displaced should be wiki-linked to Displacement (ship)
- I would also recommending wiki-linking Long ton as it is a measurement some readers may be unfamiliar with
- This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
Construction and career
- In the third paragraph, I'd recommend adding a comma in the natural pause following "On 21 July 1875"
- This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
- Thanks for your timely review. I've done most of what you pointed out, but alt text is only a suggestion, not a requirement and adding specific details to the admittedly short lede seems rather redundant to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sturmvogel 66, thank you for your timely response to my comments and questions. Upon my re-review of my article, I find that you've incorporated most of my suggestions and I hereby pass this article to Good Article status. Congratulations on another job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your timely review. I've done most of what you pointed out, but alt text is only a suggestion, not a requirement and adding specific details to the admittedly short lede seems rather redundant to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)