Talk:Russian monitor Perun

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian monitor Perun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 12:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Good prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The article is thoroughly referenced. It relies heavily on a single source, but there doesn't seem to be much information available in English on this ship so that's no problem.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Looks like you've covered the available information comprehensively. The infobox mentions the namesake of the ship, but if you want to improve the article further you could include a sentence explaining the namesake in the body.

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):

   I searched the Russian name of the ship to try to find an image of the ship itself, but couldn't. The image of Koldun is definitely better than nothing.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Thanks for your work on this article, it looks great and I'm happy to close the review as pass and promote to GA. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Heh - I was just about to post my review of the article when you beat me to the punch - hope you don't mind if I add my comments.

• Would the rectangular boilers be box boilers?
  • Probably, but let me query my boiler expert.
• Link ironclad, wrought iron, and I'd assume the shipyard merits a red link
  • Linked, except for the shipyard as I'm not sure what happens to it later on. I suspect that it gets absorbed by the New Admiralty, but maybe not.
• this has a bit of back story on the name - don't know if it's worth including in a footnote or not - nothing else of any note in google books. Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding your comments; I linked to the namesake in the infobox and I think that that's good enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)