Talk:Russian battleship Rostislav/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments
[edit]- Reference style to be consistent they should all look the same Nos 9 and 15 for example. No 9 Melnikov 2006, p. 4. has a {{.}} at the end while No 15 Silverstone, p. 366 does not.
- Fixed
- Melnikov 2006 has the year added after the name, while the other authors do not
- Fixed
- Mixture of dates on cite web ref 18 is formatted Retrieved 15 August 2010. while ref 60 is Retrieved 2010-06-30.
- Fixed
- In the bibliography Shirokorad does not see to have been used
- Moved to further reading.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Enjoyed reading this one, some of the battles etc I had never heard of so it was something new. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Passed GA --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)