Talk:Soviet cruiser Kaganovich/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Pyrotec in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Initial comments
editThis 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.
- It shouldn't have been there. I've the duplication in Construction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm happy to consider the "accepted into fleet" as a part of Service, but its not clear why the late delivery aspects are?
- Not sure what you mean here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- WP:Lead -
- Appears to be OK.
At this stage I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Much better. Pyrotec (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Overall summary
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
An informative well-referenced article.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- 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:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)