Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- Fourth paragraph of the Armament section is a fragment, and should be up-merged to previous paragraph.
- Is Kronstadt the name of a ship, or did you mean to wikilink it instead to the port?
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- First paragraph of Armament section is uncited.
- Can you put the single-use cites into the References for consistency?
- 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):
A couple of minor points to clarify, and then this can be passed. Skinny87 (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, I didn't expect another batch of reviews so quickly; it will be slim pickings from here on out, I'm afraid.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)