Talk:Charodeika-class monitor/GA1
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Tomobe03 in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 12:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- No disambiguation links found (no action required)
- Checklinks reports no problems with external links (no action required)
- There are four duplicate links in the article which should be removed per WP:OVERLINK. Those are: boiler, smoothbore, waterline and freeboard.
- Image sourcing/licence/caption seem to be in order. The presently found templates at the commons indicate US-PD tag is required. Maybe it would be a good idea to add one.
- Prose referencing appears to be in order (no action required)
- Please add ISSN (or OCLC) for Warship International. According to this, ISSN is 0043-0374.
- Where does the 762,000 rouble pricetag specified in the infobox come from? I found no mention of the cost in the prose.
- Prose indicates 13+171=184 officers and crew in design/description, 177 in sinking of Rusalka, while the infobox states 172. Should there be some modifications to the infobox or it pertains to a specific period/configuration?
- Crew size always fluctuates as equipment is added or removed; I'm just using what my main source gave me for crew numbers.
- Of course, but the figure stated in the infobox does not appear in the prose where it could be referenced - at least I can't find it there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I'd missed your comment earlier. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Of course, but the figure stated in the infobox does not appear in the prose where it could be referenced - at least I can't find it there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Crew size always fluctuates as equipment is added or removed; I'm just using what my main source gave me for crew numbers.
I apologize for taking this long to review the article - a RL project quickly piled. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- No trouble, thanks for reviewing it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- All clear now. Good work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)