Talk:Russian battleship Oryol/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Buggie111 (talk · contribs) 16:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"Construction began on Oryol, a traditional warship name in the Imperial Russian Navy that means eagle" sounds kind of clumsy. why not just put "(in english: eagle)" somewhere in the lead? Link to Superstructure. Both done.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I see McLaughlin gives two possible fates for Oryol, but some of my sources, namely Balakin, Taras and Watts all list Kobe as the fate. Should the sentence be changed? I'm not sure what you mean. I only have Watt, who doesn't specify location of scrapping, but I'd bet that these are all old sources and less reliable than McLaughlin. Balakin and Taras are 2004 and 2000, respectively, but I see your point. I thought Watts does give Kobe as the scrapping point. Buggie111 (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Any info on why she was built 600 tons overweight? Just the usual shoddy Russian shipbuilding practices, I suspect. ) Buggie111 (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] "fired two torpedoes at a ship that may have been Oryol, although both torpedoes missed" - why the confusion as to the ship name? Any more accurate sources we could use to ref that? Tactical accounts of Tsushima are confused because the crappy visibility, and lack of Russian records, meant that ships really couldn't figure out who or what they were shooting out. Campbell is the best account I've found; if you've seen better, lemme know. I haven't seen Corbett, though.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	needs a United States Public Domain tag. Done.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Almost good to go, sturm. Just the few points above. Buggie111 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]