Talk:Océan-class ironclad/GA1

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Fourth paragraph of the Armament section is a fragment, and should be up-merged to previous paragraph.
 * Done
 * Is Kronstadt the name of a ship, or did you mean to wikilink it instead to the port?
 * Oops.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * First paragraph of Armament section is uncited.
 * Oops.
 * Can you put the single-use cites into the References for consistency?
 * Done
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

A couple of minor points to clarify, and then this can be passed. Skinny87 (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't expect another batch of reviews so quickly; it will be slim pickings from here on out, I'm afraid.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)