Talk:Russian monitor Bronenosets/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 02:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review:

• "She was stricken in 1900 and converted into a coal barge in 1903. Barzha No. 324, as the ship was now known,": "now" isn't quite right here; it has to do with the likelihood that the reader has adopted the narrator's time frame. Usually, they haven't, when they're reading an introductory overview. Better is: "She was stricken in 1900, converted into a coal barge in 1903, and renamed Barzha No. 324." - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• The toolbox checks out. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Are there any other secondary sources available? - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Only in Russian, AFAIK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• "just like the Passaic-class ships": just as in ...
• "a total of 1,148,000 rubles; almost double her contract cost of 600,000 rubles.": comma, not semicolon
• "she, and all of her sisters, except Latnik,": she, and all of her sisters except Latnik,
• "other than she was laid up": other than that she was laid up
• "her turret, side armor and its wooden backing": nonparallel series
  • I want to keep the bit about the removal of the backing, so I've added a comma after "armor" to make it a sub-clause. Does that work?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Adding "her" fixed it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • You're right, that does read better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• "and the division": and by the division
• Otherwise:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

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 (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. All comments have been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Passed GA. I'm going to pass this because I know you check diligently for sources and I wouldn't know where to start looking for Russian sources ... but please either look for them yourself or ask around; a GA based mostly on one source is IMO a little thin. - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It is, I agree, but I'm not about to start to try and type the text of the book into an online translator, as crappy as they are, to try and fill out the ship's history. Especially since McLaughlin, who does read Russian, presumably used the book as a source himself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)