Talk:Soviet destroyer Smely (1939)/GA1
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 01:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Looking at this one. —Ed!(talk) 01:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written:
- Pass One one note: Sentence beginning with "20" should have numeral spelled out. Preferred for consistency that numerals over 10 be presented ("fifteen minutes") but this is sufficiently stringent for GA criteria.
- Dab links, dup links, external links tools all show no problems. Copyvio tool shows green.
- Pass One one note: Sentence beginning with "20" should have numeral spelled out. Preferred for consistency that numerals over 10 be presented ("fifteen minutes") but this is sufficiently stringent for GA criteria.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable:
- Pass Offline sources accepted in good faith. A cursory check of the source material on Google in English sources backs up material cites in the article.
- It is broad in its coverage:
- Pass Appropriate context included from ship class article; additional detail really only has a place there for consistency.
- Would prefer to have a unit cost, but records on this subject aren't common in the source material as I understand it.
- Article doesn't explicitly state it, but looking at the source material online the lack of fatalities in the sinking would be notable to include if possible.
- Pass Appropriate context included from ship class article; additional detail really only has a place there for consistency.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy:
- Pass Sufficient mix of third-party sources in both Russian language and other contemporaries.
- It is stable:
- Pass No problems there.
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
- Pass One image included under public domain tag where appropriate.
- Other:
- Pass A few relatively minor suggestions, though given the short history of the subject material as well as the comprehensive nature of relevant context, I don't see a need to place the article on hold for these to be fixed. So, passing the article for GA. —Ed!(talk) 05:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)