Talk:Kursk submarine disaster/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I would normally quick-fail any nomination that had uncited sentences. This is the case with this nomination. On the basis that these may have been overlooked, I will give the nominator seven days to cite all uncited material, otherwise I will fail the nomination. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the time window to get it fixed. It's been quite a while since I made the GA nom and the article has changed since then. Can you please clarify your statement re: "uncited sentences". There isn't any WP requirement to cite every single sentence. Are you referring to the issue that some paragraphs conclude with uncited sentences? If so, that's likely a result of having made copy edits that moved sentences outside the range of the ref used. If that's the issue, please confirm and I'll strive to re-associate those 14 uncited sentences with their original refs. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 17:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, it is the paras concluding with uncited sentences, rather than "uncited sentences, per se". Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I verified and added refs to the end of every paragraph that was missing one, or removed the sentence if I couldn't find the ref. Thanks for your patience. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 05:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. I will start reviewing asap. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed the contractions and delinked the wl with more than one wl, though I think the standard of describing instances of two wikilinks as "overlinked" is a bit excessive. I also fixed a couple of unformatted references to archived sources that someone added which were badly formatted. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the usual standard is one link in the lead (if appropriate), and one in the body. What I'm really concerned about is the size/readability issue, and the associated need for the article to be more concise. I appreciate it is an infamous event and there is a fair amount of complexity and technical material involved, but I'm not sure the size can be justified against criteria 1a. Given its length and the amount of time that will be involved in reviewing it, I think I'll ask for a second opinion before embarking on a detailed review. I've posted the request here, feel free to comment on the thread. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've reorganized the article and consolidated details, though this didn't reduce the size. I'll resubmit this for GA a bit later. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 21:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)