Talk:Soviet cruiser Kaganovich/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Pyrotec in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Initial comments

edit

This looks to be quite a reasonable in respect of Construction but there are a few minor points that need to be addressed first.

  • Construction -
  • I moved the Kirov class cruiser wikilink to {{Main}}. Without that link, this section is somewhat incomplete and confusing, i.e. "a pair", sister and half-sister are not otherwise explained.
  • As it now stands, I consider this section to be acceptable for a GA-class article.
  • Service -
  • The first and a half sentences are quite similar to one in Construction:
  • I'm not sure why this information needs to be repeated in a modified form and why it is in the Service section.
  • I'm happy to consider the "accepted into fleet" as a part of Service, but its not clear why the late delivery aspects are?
  • Its also not clear if these delays are in date sequence, but I suspect not, the Dock 8 girder collapse is dated to December 1942, but not the delays with the propellers and propshafts
  • I've given dates for the western factory issues to clarify the sequence here.
  • My, perhaps unkind, thoughts were that there was inadequate information in Service and that information that aught to be in Construction had been moved across to pad it out.
Appears to be OK.

At this stage I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Construction was a bit of a misnomer and I've renamed it Description instead. See what you think of the changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Much better. Pyrotec (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Overall summary

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


An informative well-referenced article.

  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:  

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply