Talk:Battle of Kinburn (1855)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 07:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I will be taking on the review of this article for GA. Expect a full review to be up either today or tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Minor comments; My concerns have been addressed. "They then fought their way to the main Russian naval base on the peninsula, the city of Sevastopol, which they then placed under siege." -> They then; they then -> The army then fought their way to the main Russian naval base on the peninsula, the city of Sevastopol, (which they placed under siege. Or. which was then besieged.) "the only purpose of te operation" -> the only purpose of the operation "medium-caliber guns and smaller" -> medium-caliber and smaller guns. Or. medium and small caliber guns. "Bazaine's infantry conducted a reconnaissance toward Kherson..." -> Bazaine's infantry conducted reconnaissance towards Kherson... "the following year, to strengthen..." -> the following year to strengthen... "Bruat informed his superiors that "Everything may..." -> Bruat informed his superiors that "[e]verything may..." Good points, they should all be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fixed. There is a dab link; "... seize the Russian fort at Kinburn, which protected ...", Kinburn links to a disambiguation page, needs fixing. Done. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All the references are in the article in their appropriate sections.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	A couple minor issues; "Quoted in Wilson, p. XXXVI" <- no need to place quoted in the citation -> "Wilson, p. XXXVI". Other than that, no issues here. Citation 2, Lambert p. 269, should be Lambert p. 269-270. Part of the information for the citation is on the next page in the first paragraph. Both corrected. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	I have managed to access two of the sources and can confirm that the material in the article is an accurate reflection of the material in the source. I say reflection because the editor has used significant paraphrasing.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig had nothing to compare the article too, and, my own comparisons of the source material and the article show very different styles of writing. The information is ostensibly the same, but, written in one's own words.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article addresses the main components of the topic, 1. The pre-battle background, 2. The battle and 3. The post-battle events.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is well-focused on the topic it discusses.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is written in a neutral tone and with balanced use of sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is in a stable condition with no on-going content disputes and no outstanding issues on the talk page that need addressing.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Appropriately tagged images. Images that need appropriate tags; [File:French ironclad floating batteries at Kinburn 1855.jpg] The above image needs its {{PD-art}} tag correct to remove the error with {{PD-1923}} in this case. [File:Attack on Kinburn.jpg] The above image needs to be tagged with {{PD-1923}}, all images need a PD designation that is applicable to the U.S. [File:HMS Warrior 1872.jpg] The above image needs its {{PD-art}} tag corrected to identify it as PD in the U.S. All corrected. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images have appropriate captions and are relevant to the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	Some minor issues that need addressing. Passes GA

I will be using the above table for my review so you can expect my comments to be under the appropriate criterion. If something is affected between two or more criterion then I will place it under one and make a note under the others. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Parsecboy, a fine article you have here, only a few minor issues to the prose, a dab, a citation question and some image tags that need fixing. The images themselves are fine, but, they lack the correct tags to identify them as such. Feel free to ping me if you need any assistance. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, thanks for your thorough review of the article. I think everything has been corrected. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)