Talk:Russian battleship Sinop/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

  • No citation errors, no dab links, external links check out (no action req);
  • I have made a couple of changes, please check to see that you are happy with them;
    • They're fine, although I'm not sure that 1900s needs to be linked.
      • Don't think I linked 1900s (did I?), I agree there is no need for that. Anotherclown (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Use of the word 'she' in the lead and throughout the article is a little repetitive;
    • A persistent problem of mine. I think that I've mixed things up better now.
  • I think this phrase (in the last para of the history section) could be reworded: "but the fleet never did this." Maybe.... 'however this operation never took place.' or something similar.
    • How does it read now?
  • This sentence is a fairly bold statement: " they abandoned the Whites." Maybe reword to avoid any possible POV issues?
    • It's pretty hard to see it as anything else since the Brits withdrew all support and ships from the Whites in the south with very little notice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed, telling it like it was... but maybe it could be 'softened'... perhaps 'withdrew support for the Whites' or something similar. Anotherclown (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm a little concerned about the blog you have used as ref 13 (Ringis)... can you add something else to back it up to establish that it is a reliable source?
    • It's not a blog at all. It's an online newspaper or somesuch. I looked for more info from Ballard, but he has almost nothing on it. I did confirm that he made an expedition to the Black Sea at that time, but I think that the Ukrainians are the ones pushing the ID as Sinop. But since I don't know how the data was divided up, I can't say if he agrees with them or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall, this is a good article with just a couple of minor issues to fix before I intend on passing. Anotherclown (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
All issues resolved, plus you picked up a couple of MOS issues I missed (I will leave the last point re the British and the Whites up to you). IMO this is a good article and I'm happy to promote it. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)