Jump to content

Talk:Russian cruiser Bayan (1900)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger proposal

[edit]

I see no reason why we should have separate articles for this ship in Russian and Japanese service when both are fairly short.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure go ahead (Pindanl (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
 Done DoctorKubla (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian cruiser Bayan (1900)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 20:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Watch ENGVAR - see "armoured" and "armored", "harbor", "defenses", etc.
    "After providing naval gunfire support to the Imperial Japanese Army..." - surely she wasn't supporting the IJA in the RJ War?
    I'd pipe the link to Strashnii - it looks out of place compared to the rest of the linked ships
    Got what appears to be a missing link in the first line of the second para in the career section
    Watch your spelling here: "After the death of Vitfeft during the Battle of the Yellow Sea on 10 August, Viren was promoted"
    "She was subsequently trapped" - I'd recommend using the ship's name here
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    What's the difference between Corbett I and II? I only see one entry in the ref section.
    Two volumes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Where did she go between 1912 and 1914? Laid up?
    Not mentioned other than her refit in '13.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Was there any involvement in operations during WWI?
    Other than the one training cruise, none.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    This isn't required, but you might want to turn Russian cruiser Bayan into an index page (or at least add a hatnote on this article to the later ship). Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I think that I've caught all the AmEng'isms and otherwise dealt with all of your comments. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now - I fixed the "Viren" mentioned above. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_cruiser_Bayan_(1900)&oldid=1204809603"