Talk:Russian monitor Latnik

Russian monitor Latnik has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 14, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Russia: Technology & engineering / Military Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Military history: Maritime / Russian & Soviet

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian monitor Latnik/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 23:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66, upon my initial review of this article, I feel it meets many of the criteria for Good Article status. I look forward to reviewing this article more thoroughly in the coming days. Thank you for all your stellar contributions to Wikipedia! Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime! -- Caponer (talk) 23:57, 12 May 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 (references): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Lead

In the last sentence of the lead, should it be clarified that the ship was scrapped by the Finns later that same year? It's evident in the infobox and in the article's prose further down, but it could also be mentioned in the lead.
- Remember that the lede is only supposed to be a summary, so I don't think the actual date of scrapping is necessary. Especially since it's not exactly known.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Barzha No. 38 and Barzha No. 326 should probably both be mentioned in the lead.
Other than the two minor suggestions, there are no other items that need to be addressed in the lead.

Description

In the first paragraph, the conversion looks like it is off. I believe this should be corrected to read "1,500–1,600 long tons (1,524–1,626 t)".
The same issue occurs with regard to the amount of coal Latnik could carry: "190 long tons (190 t)". Shouldn't the ton conversion be slightly more than the long ton figure?
- Rounding errors.
"nine-inch smoothbores" should have a metric conversion to mm.
- It's converted on first use.
Other than the aforementioned small fixes, this section reads beautifully and I can find no other items that need to be addressed.

Career

Wiki-link Helsinki.

Overall

This article reads very well, and I must admit that this is my first article detailing a ship that I've reviewed, so please take that into account when looking over my comments and suggestions. I know you've probably already undertaken an exhaustive search of additional sources, but I would try to incorporate one more reference as there are only two internally cited within the prose. If another doesn't exist, this certainly isn't a deal-breaker. Sturmvogel 66, I commend you on another job well done crafting this article--it's been a privilege to review! -- Caponer (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66, thank you for addressing all my above comments and suggestions. Upon my re-review of the article, I find it is ready for passage to Good Article status! Congratulations on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]