Talk:Russian monitor Koldun/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 20:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have comments up within the next day or so. Dana boomer (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Everything checks out, so I am passing the article to GA status. One minor comment below, but this is too small an issue to hold up the GA nom for. Dana boomer (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment, not necessary for GA status:

Somewhere in the article, say how many ships there were in the class? In the career section, it says that all but one of the ships made a visit to Stockholm, but the reader doesn't know how many ships this was without going over to the class article. Dana boomer (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]