Talk:Russian battleship Imperatritsa Mariya

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian battleship Imperatritsa Mariya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi. This is my first GA review, so PLEASE correct me on anything that needs to be fixed.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

All MoS aspects look ok, and spell check in word went fine, but I'd like an Second Opinion on this section.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I've run a search on the average amount of refs in a GA-Class battleship, and the result was 21.75, so I'd suggest you might incorporate the 10 refs on ru.wiki, 6 on uk.wiki, 2 on pl.wiki and 5 on de.wiki.

   I tend to group citations together at the end of a paragraph since most of them are from the same source. That's why I have clumps of page numbers, which other people might break out into individual cites. So don't get caught up into the total number of cites; what matters is if every paragraph and controversial statement is cited or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I don't know if the 7 KB difference from this version and the ru.wiki is just highly decorated templates and a bigger infobox, but I'll check, and if so, I'll try to expand.

   Why does this matter? If you're fluent in Russian and there's something not covered here and sourced, then feel free to add it. If you need to machine-translate like I have to then I'd ask you to refrain as I don't trust Google or whatever with complex concepts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

   Most of the bytage difference is a slightly bigger infobox and an indetail section on how they raised the ship, which I don't think is necesary.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. 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):

   Both images need alts, but besides that they're fine.

   Alts are required for A-class, but are a good idea at this level as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Decent article, fun to read, hope that this will make it (WP:OMT needs a lot of work). Good luck in the cup, also. Buggie111 (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Buggie111 (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Hey, you got mixed up between the class article, which you claimed, and the ship article, which is this one, on the WP:GAN page. You need to fix it to prevent confusion and to get your second opinion directed to the right place.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion from HJ Mitchell

I'll weigh in here since you asked for a second opinion. Thanks for taking it on- we need more GA reviewers! At a glance, the content of the article appears OK to me (as a non-expert on the subject) and all the images check out. My main concern is the references- I assume that's a book being cited? If so, it should have author's full name, title, publication date and, most importantly, ISBN. Also, it would b nice to see one or two online sources so that readers can quickly verify the information, though I appreciate the difficulty of this with the age of the subject. I'd also suggest that another image wouldn't do any harm since there are a few on Commons. I'll watch this page and drop back in a day or so, but feel free to drop me a line if you want me sooner. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations don't need all that provided it's given in the bibliography. And what are the external links for, if not for quick reference? One photo added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

• Prose: there are some rather clumsy turns of phrase, e.g.
• She was begun before World War I, completed in 1915 and saw service with the Black Sea Fleet. - she was begun?
  • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• 4 consecutive sentences in the lead start with She
  • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• She was approved for scrapping in June 1925 and officially stricken on 21 November 1925, although it did not begin until 1926 when she was refloated and moved back into the drydock - stricken? "it did not begin"?
  • Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• On the morning of 20 October 1916 a fire was discovered in the forward powder magazine while at anchor in Sevastopol, but it exploded before any efforts could be made to fight the fire. - surely the magazine exploded, not the fire?
  • That antecedent is perfectly clear; there's no other reasonable choice as the magazine is mentioned after fire.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• She was subsequently raised, but her condition was very poor and she was ultimately scrapped beginning in 1926. needs a rewrite for grammar, maybe She was subsequently raised, but her condition was very poor and scrapping began in 1926.
  • Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Factual accuracy: This press report suggests she was sunk off the mouth of the Danube. This of course may have been an incorrect report by the Bulgarians, but perhaps worthy of mention.
  • Considering it's dated a month after she sank in Sevastopol I really don't think that it's useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Places such as Nikolayev, need a little more location, eg Nikolayev, Ukraine, Sevastopol, in the Crimea. Not all readers will be familiar with Rusian geography.
  • They're all linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope tehse comments help. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC).

Another opinion

The largest concern I have with this article is the lack of breadth of sources. McLoughlin could have seriously overlooked large chunks of information and you have no extensive sources supplementing him. Historians rarely get cover everything in one bout. Also, the prose does have some problems (See above comments). Sadads (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• There are only three major English-language sources on this ship and McLaughlin is the most recent and comprehensive so it's gotten used the most, especially as it's the only one to draw on post-Cold War Russian and Soviet writings.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dodo19's opinion

I don't see any major issues here - but I am not an expert.

Anyway, what I find irritating is the use of measurements. There are probably three different systems of measurement used here. I am not sure whether one needs to have every nautical unit converted into the imperial and metric every time. It makes for difficult reading.

• No, just two, and each measurement is generally only converted once.

Along the same lines I would suggest to stick to one system as the primary one. It's a bit confusing to have a 13 inch gun next to a 130 mm one.

• Unfortunately that's not how the Russians did things as they were just beginning to switch over to the metric system themselves. So newer guns were measured in millimeters and older ones were in inches.

On the other hand, I would rather use the old style dates prior to 1918, as that was the style used in Russia at the time. As far as I am aware, they can easily be converted to show both Old and new stlye. After 1918 it's obvious that it's new style. I am just thinking of some insufferable know-it-alls, who miss the footnote and think we got the dates all wrong.

• I don't agree as all English-language references on naval combat in WWI use New Style dates so to keep the reader oriented as to sequence of events. Somebody reading Halpern, forex, would be rather confused by the difference in dates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Apart from that, a link to Siege of Sevastopol (1941–1942) rather than World War II would be more appopriate at the end, I believe. --Dodo19 (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Final Opinion

Everything seems to have been fixed. This is now a GA!Buggie111 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)