Talk:Russian ironclad Kniaz Pozharsky/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Starstriker7 (talk · contribs) 17:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll do this review. --Starstriker7(Talk) 17:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Criterion 1
[edit]- "1877–78 and remained in the Baltic Sea until 1879–80 when" - Commas after –78 and –80.
- "In an attempt to provide axial fire the sides" - Comma between "fire" and "sides".
- "in front and behind the" - Add an "of" after "front".
- "traditional broadside layout this still" - Comma between "layout" and "this".
- "pounds (136 kg) while the gun" - Comma between the weight measurement and "while".
- Can "Naval School Division" be wikilinked?
- "elderly monitor Lava" - Elderly is an odd word choice. Won't hold GA for this, but can it be changed?
- All done. Elderly is rather appropriate as Lava was about 55 years old at the time. She was a copy of the Passaic-class monitors from the American Civil War. I could use obsolete if you'd like, but it doesn't really convey just how out of date Lava really was.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Criteria 2 and 3
[edit]- The Japanese good article equivalent is nearly 70,000 bytes. The article author appeared to have taken advantage of several Russian-language sources. I find that the extent of the English-language article is sufficient for GA status, based on the sizes of its peers on the English Wikipedia; but is there a way to utilize these Russian-language sources to expand the article further? I think I recall seeing you use Russian-language sources before.
- That was with the help of a Russian who's dropped off Wiki. I don't read it myself, and I've had enough trouble trying to run Russian through Google Translate and make it understandable that I'm not willing to bother with it again. I'd love to have some help from a native speaker on all these Russian armored cruisers as the post-Cold War publications on the Russian ships are far better than anything available during that time, but they have't been translated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I understand. I guess one can always hope that such help will make itself available again. :) Anyways, I'm passing the article now. --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- That was with the help of a Russian who's dropped off Wiki. I don't read it myself, and I've had enough trouble trying to run Russian through Google Translate and make it understandable that I'm not willing to bother with it again. I'd love to have some help from a native speaker on all these Russian armored cruisers as the post-Cold War publications on the Russian ships are far better than anything available during that time, but they have't been translated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)