Talk:Russian monitor Strelets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 13:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sturmvogel 66, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I assess that it meets the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have some comments and suggestions that should first be addressed. Thank you for your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): 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:

Lede

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the monitor, establishes the monitor's necessary context, and explains why the monitor is otherwise notable.
  • The info box for the monitor is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
  • For a more comprehensive lede, I would recommend adding some additional content form the "Description" section, perhaps mentioning the ship's displacement or its maximum speed at sea trials.
  • The image of Strelets has been released into the public domain and it is therefore acceptable for use in this article.
  • I would recommend adding an alternative caption per the guidance outlined at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. If this is not doable with the ship info box template, then please disregard this recommendation.
  • While a wiki-link to Streltsy is listed as the monitor's namesake in the info box, there is no statement below in the prose with an inline citation. I would recommend incorporating this below into the "Description" section with an inline citation.
  • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Description

  • Displaced should be wiki-linked to Displacement (ship)
  • I would also recommending wiki-linking Long ton as it is a measurement some readers may be unfamiliar with
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Construction and career

  • In the third paragraph, I'd recommend adding a comma in the natural pause following "On 21 July 1875"
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
    • Thanks for your timely review. I've done most of what you pointed out, but alt text is only a suggestion, not a requirement and adding specific details to the admittedly short lede seems rather redundant to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sturmvogel 66, thank you for your timely response to my comments and questions. Upon my re-review of my article, I find that you've incorporated most of my suggestions and I hereby pass this article to Good Article status. Congratulations on another job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]