Talk:Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1897)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 14:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


A good article is—

  1. Well written:
    1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


This subsection is intended for reviewer's notes on review process. Please, don't edit it unless You are reviewer.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:


Please add comments about the changes or reviewer's mistakes here.

Regarding 1(b) failure: though I didn't examine the WP:MOS compliance in full, I have already found the substantial shortcoming of the lead section: it doesn't mention Vasily Vereshchagin, though the ship is probably best known for being his place of death. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 2(a) failure: the article doesn't follow single style of referencing: while most books are listed in the Bibliography section, two are in References section instead. Also, these two books are not in {{cite book}} format, which violates the common style of the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 2(c) question: I have no access to the sources. After ending the initial review step I'll take care of bringing other's attention to the book list; though until any claims about inaccuracy are received, I'll assume the good referencing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Further detail on 1(b): the article lacks See also section. Though everything I can think of in relation to this article is linked from the article's body, I would ask everyone to comment on possibilities. That said, currently I see no other issues (except for mentioned above) with the WP:MOS compliance. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I will admit I forgot about the lead and the References section. My bad. I'll fix it. Buggie111 (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI, See also sections are rarely used, if at all in ship articles, see Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895), Helgoland class battleship, SMS Goeben for examples. Buggie111 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Please note, I don't request the See also section; instead I just ask to think about possible entries. Right now I don't see any candidates. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I've fixed the rest. Buggie111 (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I saw the notice on WT:SHIPS and thought I'd take a look at what I can. There are some other MOS issues - the footnotes need to be formatted the same (i.e., link them all or none, use "p." or "pg" consistently), ensure all books in the bibliography section are cited, or else move them to a "Further reading" section or remove them altogether (for instance, Gardiner et. al., Jung, Preston, Spector, and Wood), and one of the two images of the ship sinking need to be moved or removed. Text sandwiching is a no-go.
  • As for images in general, we need a pre-1917 date of publication all of the images save the color print from Le Petit Journal. That may help decide what to do with the other sinking photo.
  • The lead's a bit short - remember it's supposed to summarize the entire article, so I'd recommend adding a few other things, like her participation in the Boxer Rebellion and serving as the East Asia Squadron flagship in 1900. I like to put a line or two on technical stuff (like main armament, speed, size), though I know some don't like doing that. As an aside, numbers should be spelled out if they are followed by a numerical descriptor (like twenty 305mm shells). I fixed the two instances here. Otherwise, the article looks great. Nice work, Buggie. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
A few questions:
  1. What is "text sandwiching"?
  2. What do You think is not summarized in a lead? The Boxer Rebellion is barely mentioned in the article... Given the article's length, the longer lead would just be an overkill, IMHO.
  3. I completely fail to understand Your point about the images. What did you mean?
  4. Why do You think all the books from Bibliography should be used for inline citations? As far as I can see, WP:MOS states otherwise.
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Kind of don't get the publication date Parsec. All of them, bar the color print, ahve the date written there. IS there something wrong with that? I'll axe the color print and do the other things ASAP. Buggie111 (talk)
On text sandwiching, see here. Basically, you don't want two images sandwiching text between them.
The entire design and construction section, for example. The Boxer Rebellion is a fairly notable event and merits mentioning in the lead. On a related note, you may want to look through accounts of the Boxer Rebellion for a fuller picture of what Petropavlovsk and the Russian contingent was doing.
As for images, they need a date of publication (not the same thing as the date the photo was taken), and the document they were published in (i.e., a newspaper, naval annual, postcard, etc.) See for example this image I uploaded of a contemporary warship. The color print is actually the only photo that is currently usable (though it needs a {{PD-US}} tag added to the description page).
General practice at FAC/ACR/GAN is for sources not directly used in the article to be placed in a further reading section. If the source is consulted, it needs to be cited directly to meet current sourcing standards. Parsecboy (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll add the design to the lead, as well as lazily change the images so as they're only using acceptable ones instead of look for dates on the current ones. Buggie111 (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So, the current status is:

  • The lead should mention all important events from the ship's history  Done
  • Style of references  Done
  • Printed sources' verification ω Awaiting
  • Images  Done
  • Numbers  Done

Am I missing something? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems there is nothing to wait for any more. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)