Talk:Russian submarine K-114 Tula/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jivesh boodhun ( talk · contribs) 09:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Since most sources are in Russian, I am using Google translate for spotchecks. Please include the language parameter where needed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Prose

• she carries - are submarines females? I thought we apply such subjects only in French language.

• Ships and boats are referred to as she. Search for "she" here and here read this. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• her during Tula's later operational life - Replace Tula's with her. The sentence is short and can be easily understood.

• Done.  Done

• She also equipped with - Something missing?

• Done.  Done

>Really impressive though a short article. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

References

• 4. Federation of American Scientists should not be in italics.
• 7. Bellona Foundation should not be in italics.
• 13. Add Digital Sky Technologies
• 15. Barents Observer should not be in italics.
• 18. Add Yulia Minder

Why can't they be in italics? They're the creators of the works, aren't they? As for Barents Observer, I believe it's a newspaper. And what's "Yulia Minder" and "Digital Sky Technologies"? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia does not italicize them. Normally, magazines and newspapers are in italics, not online publications. For instance, online magazines are not in italics. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Done with first and second. Barents Observer is a news source. What's "Yulia Minder" and "Digital Sky Technologies"? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. The two other are the actual publishers. Jivesh1205 (Talk)

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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):

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:

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Passing. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)