Talk:Russian monitor Perun

Russian monitor Perun 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: July 27, 2015. (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 Perun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 12:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2015 (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):
Good prose.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The article is thoroughly referenced. It relies heavily on a single source, but there doesn't seem to be much information available in English on this ship so that's no problem.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Looks like you've covered the available information comprehensively. The infobox mentions the namesake of the ship, but if you want to improve the article further you could include a sentence explaining the namesake in the body.
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):
I searched the Russian name of the ship to try to find an image of the ship itself, but couldn't. The image of Koldun is definitely better than nothing.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Thanks for your work on this article, it looks great and I'm happy to close the review as pass and promote to GA. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - I was just about to post my review of the article when you beat me to the punch - hope you don't mind if I add my comments.

Would the rectangular boilers be box boilers?
- Probably, but let me query my boiler expert.
Link ironclad, wrought iron, and I'd assume the shipyard merits a red link
- Linked, except for the shipyard as I'm not sure what happens to it later on. I suspect that it gets absorbed by the New Admiralty, but maybe not.
this has a bit of back story on the name - don't know if it's worth including in a footnote or not - nothing else of any note in google books. Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding your comments; I linked to the namesake in the infobox and I think that that's good enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]