Talk:Russian battleship Sinop/GA1

GA Review

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

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

Initial comments

• 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.
    • Yep, looks fine. Anotherclown (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• 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?
    • Looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• This sentence is a fairly bold statement: "...as 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)
    • No worries, happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 16:41, 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

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)