Talk:Russian battleship Sissoi Veliky/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 16:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "The ship's maiden voyage...the ship's systems" - can you avoid the repetition of "the ship's" here?

   Rewritten--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

   Are electrical systems "revived"? That sounds odd to me.

   What, you never heard of electro-necromancy? Changed to repaired.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

   The link to FC de la Mediterranee should be italicized

   Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

   "This could, had a shell struck it, completely..." there's a missing "have" in there - might be easier to simply reword it to "could have completely...protection, had a shell struck it."

   Reworded.

   "compelling the imperial authorities to intervene" - who, the Romanovs or the Qing? Presumably the former, but it's not clear to me.

   Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

   "Russians responded with sending..." - should probably be "responded by"

   I wonder about some of the links - For instance, the link to Vietnam piped as "Vietnamese harbor" doesn't seem particularly helpful (or in accordance with WP:EASTEREGG). Also, the boiler tube link at the end of the "Last voyage" section links to water-tube boiler, while the description section says the ship had fire-tube boilers.

   Deleted or rewritten.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

   Conversely, there's a relevant article Siege of the International Legations that's not linked.

   Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

   Some admirals have their first names listed, while others only have their last names - please add first names to those missing them (for example, Admiral Dubasov in the Far East section)

   Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Why is the paragraph on the main battery in the "Design" section and not the "Armament" one?

   Operator headspace and timing?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

   Is the nickel steel used in the ship's armor Harvey steel?

   No, just plain nickel steel, briefly in use before Harvey was invented.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

   The article mentions that the shoddy work on the internal decks contributed to her loss at Tsushima, but that is not explained (or even mentioned) in the section on the battle. Can you add something specific on the effects of the poor interior structure on the flooding caused by battle damage?

   Unfortunately, no. And since I neither read Russian and nor have Bogdanov, I've deleted the reference to battle damage at Tsushima--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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):

   Most of the images are sourced to a 2004 publication - how are these either PD in Russia (necessary for hosting on Commons) and PD in the US? As far as I can tell, the only images that are not potentially problematic are the two linedrawings, since they're duplicates of the original plans.

   Didn't even think to look, though I should have known considering how often this sort of thing comes up with Russian warships. All purged and replaced by a postcard that I found on the net that meets the licensing requirements for Commons. Pity, some beautiful photos.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

   It is a shame - that's one of the nice things about the Italian ships, since their photos are by definition PD in Italy and the US. Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The joys of rewriting articles written by non-native speakers! Only one more to go, though, before the Russsian BBs will be done, other than the damn list. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, it's fun, and good luck with the list. There's a reason I've left this one unfinished for the past several months. Eventually I'll get to it, but it's not a priority, you know? Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Damn, I was hoping to inveigle somebody to help/do all of the upcoming lists that I need to finish for the Cup. Guess the Tom Saywer thing doesn't work so well in real life, eh?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess not, unless you can trick Ed into helping ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)