Talk:Russian battleship Chesma (1886)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Apart from minor copyediting, I have the following comments,

The lead should probably be expanded into two full paragraphs. Furthermore, right now it makes it seem as if the article has to do with Chema's roll with Potemkin, as opposed to with the Chema itself. As such, I suggest that the first paragraph maintain the first sentence and then continue with a general overview of the "design and description" section. I think three or four sentences would be sufficient. The second paragraph can be whatever is detached from the first paragraph that exists right now, and anything you may want to add. Finally, instead of moving right into the Potemkin situation, I'd suggest easing the reader into that fact by saying something like, "In June 2005, the Russian battleship Potemkin mutinied. However, with her crew considered unreliable, Chema did not participate in the pursuit of Potemkin." Or something along those lines.

Done, see what you think.

My biggest edit was in the history section, where I split off discussion on Potemkin. I felt it was out of place in the first section. Also, I moved the last sentence of the original first paragraph to the beginning of the current third paragraph.
The language is concise and clear.
All the images check out.
I think the navweapons link deserves its own spot in the bibliography, with full details (not challenging it as WP:RS, by the way).

I generally don't do that for single references, only for multiple ones.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, I think it looks good, and if I didn't think the lead needed work I would have already passed it. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead looks good now, awesome. Give me a minute or two to go through the promotion process. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]