Talk:Russian battleship Retvizan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Buggie111 (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2011 (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.	One comment: "Construction was delayed by a strike at the shipyard that began in August 1899 and continued until its collapse in early 1900" The ship? The shipyard? The strike?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I'd consider adding another header under Battle of Yellow Sea, possibly Japanese Service
	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.	"The Tide at Sunrise: A History of the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–1905 (2nd ed.)" should be moved from the notes to references section
	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'm checkmarking this section based on the fact that I know McLaughlin is a trusted, well-packed source and does not need too many other sources to supplement it. The other three books seem fine. If any problems come up later with the amount of refs, ping me.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Maybe move the line drawing down into the armament section?
	7. Overall assessment.	Few problems should be fixed. Then it will pass. Buggie111 (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done, although I moved the diagram into the Design section since it covers both armament and armor. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! GA. Buggie111 (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]