Talk:Russian battleship Potemkin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 21:38, 2 May 2013 (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.	ok
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead and see also mention the film, but the text doesn't, and needs to - with a citation, and brief explanation of how much of it represented the truth, and what the ship symbolised: that is part of the real ship's story and legacy so it should be told here; there can be a "further: " link to the film (better than a See also at the bottom). Done. Layout: OK, but is lacking a "Legacy" section - for the film and the mutiny and the impact on the real revolution(s) and the popular beliefs about the ship on which the film was based, etc. Done. Weasel: ok; Fiction: n/a; Lists: the See also seems a bit of cruft magnet - why does it list other mutinies, and on what basis? It could probably be removed altogether, with any useful links moved into the text and explained properly. Done
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.	ok
	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).	OK so far, but the legend of the mutiny, the film, etc need to be covered and cited as above.
	2c. it contains no original research.	no sign of it
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Just a small thing: at the end of Mutiny, it says Matushenko gave an order to sink the ship. What happened then? Thanks.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	good even coverage throughout
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	no problem here
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	no history of instability this year
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.	all from Commons
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	ok
	7. Overall assessment.	A detailed, informative and well-written article which I am sure readers will enjoy as much as I did. It flows really well and the small changes just round it off, I think we should all be delighted with it. Fine work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the see also section and have written a legacy section as you suggested. See what you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm very pleased I asked you to do this, as suddenly the article 'sings' -- all the technical details fall into place. Wonderful stuff. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)