Talk:Océan-class ironclad/GA1

GA Review

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)

1. 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.

   Done

   Is Kronstadt the name of a ship, or did you mean to wikilink it instead to the port?

   Oops.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   First paragraph of Armament section is uncited.

   Oops.

   Can you put the single-use cites into the References for consistency?

   Done

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:

   Pass/Fail:

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)