Wikipedia

Talk:Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa/GA1

< Talk:Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Jehochman in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago25 comments2 people in discussion

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • The lead should be a summary of the entire article. It should not contain new information (i.e. the meaning of the names), and for the most part doesn't need references unless they are being used to back up a direct quote or really controversial information.
    • I am concerned that too much weight is given to the 2008 incident. I realize that this was a horrible event, but when editing WP, editors must always keep in mind to write in a way that will still be effective and efficient 5, 10 or 20 years from now. In order to not give undue weight to any one event, I would suggest seriously trimming the 2008 accident section, down to only truly pertinent information, and keeping summary style in mind.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    • Please make sure that all web references have publishers and access dates. Also, please make sure that you're using the publisher, and not the work. For example, in ref #30, the publisher would not be "Vn.vladnews.ru", but instead "Vladivostok Novosti, Ltd.".
    *Fixed. Jehochman Talk 21:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
    • Mark refs that are not in English as such (i.e.#37)
    • What makes Tolerance.ca (Ref 2) a reliable source?
    • The title for Hindu News (Ref 31) should be "Indian Navy crew to train on nuclear-powered submarine"
    • What makes Domain B (Ref 33) a reliable source?
    • A few areas need references:
    • All direct quotes need to have references directly after them. Also, there are a lot of quotes used in the article. One option would be to integrated some of these into the prose (by rewording) so as to avoid having to put a reference in the middle of the section and to make things less choppy.
    • Construction section, the last sentence of the first paragraph needs a ref.
    • Impact on Indian lease section, the second paragraph needs a ref.
    • Causes section, the end sentence of the first paragraph needs a ref.
    • Previous Russian naval vessels named Nerpa section, the first paragraph needs a ref.
    • Cite templates should either always be used or never be used.
  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.:  
    • There appears to have been quite a bit of discussion, and some reverts, going on over the past week, in the time since the recent incident. Has this been cleared up, or are there editors that are still not happy with how the article is presented?
    • I think it is reasonably stable. It's been on the home page in the In the News section all week. This tends to increase the activity level, but people seem to be working out any differences quite well. Jehochman Talk 01:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
  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:  

I have several concerns about the MOS compliance, referencing and stability of this article, so I am putting it on hold. Due to the issues defined above, I have not completed a thorough prose review of the article. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I and others will work on it. Perhaps the 2008 accident can be split out into a daughter article with a summary remaining here. Jehochman Talk 01:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Things looks better. However, I have a few more comments.

  • The first comment in the references section still applies. It wasn't just that one reference. It's any reference that ends with a .com or .ru or anything else, unless that is actually the name of the company that publishes the website.
  • In the India lease section "A Russian defense industry official denied that talks had been held with India on the delivery of the nuclear submarine. "Russia did not launch talks on a contract to supply India with the Nerpa nuclear-powered submarine," a Russian defense industry official said." Saying "a Russian defense industry official" twice is redundant.
  • In the 2008 Accident section you say "127 civilians from both shipyards". Which two shipyards? Here you say "both", generally meaning two, but later you list four shipyards with dead civilians. So, probably change "both" to "all", and list the shipyards when you first give the number of civilians. Then, when you say where the dead were from, say something like "all four shipyards".
  • I've added a couple of fact tags where I'd like to see references.

Once these things have been taken care of, the article should be good for GA status. Thanks for the work so far. Dana boomer (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have made all the publishers consistent, per Sandy's advice and what you have said above. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 22:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sorry it took me a couple of days to get back to you. Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass this article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much, and I think you processed this review very promptly. Jehochman Talk 18:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_submarine_K-152_Nerpa/GA1&oldid=253830670"