Talk:Soviet cruiser Krasny Krym

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Bernstein2291 in topic GA Review
Good articleSoviet cruiser Krasny Krym has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 9, 2011Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Soviet cruiser Krasnyi Krym/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bernstein2291 (Talk Contributions Sign Here) 02:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  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):  
    What references does the second link in the Links section have?
    It wouldn't load for me, so I just deleted it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Is there any more information about its post WWII service?
    No, and that's what's annoying. Even Russian-language sources don't have squat about its post-war service.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  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:  

Bernstein2291 (Talk Contributions Sign Here) 03:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Considering that it's a thorough as it's ever going to be, I'm going to pass it. Bernstein2291 (Talk Contributions Sign Here) 03:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply