Talk:Russian battleship Andrei Pervozvanny/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 07:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot)  c (Alt text)
 * no dabs found by the tools;
 * the single external link works without error;
 * the image lacks alt text. It is not a requirement for GA, but you might consider adding it in (it won't affect the outcome of the review, though);

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * in the lead "Андрей Первозванный — St Andrew the First-Called". I think the emdash here should either be unspaced, or be replaced by an endash;
 * "could depress to -5°. 80 rounds per gun". I think here "80" should be "Eighty" in words as it is the first word in a new sentence;
 * "For defense against torpedo boats, Imperator Pavel I carried twelve 120-millimeter...". Is this a typo: "Imperator Pavel I", should it be "Andrei Pervozvanny"?
 * "She was launched on 30 October 1907 and began her sea trials in September 1910". Do we know why it took almost three years between launching and sea trials?
 * Not specifically. The Russians were usually slow in fitting out their ships.
 * in the body: "Construction began on 15 March 1904", but in the infobox: "Laid down: 11 May 1905". I'm not a ships expert, so I don't know, but is there a difference between commencing construction and "laid down"? If not, then the dates are inconsistent. If there is, then the body doesn't mention the laid down date;
 * Good catch, added.
 * in the body: "She was launched on 30 October 1907" but in the infobox: "Launched: 30 October 1906". Inconsistent dates;
 * the infobox says that the ship's complement was 956, but this is not mentioned in the body of the article. Do you think it should be?
 * Yes and done.
 * inconsistent spelling: "and a draft of 27 feet (8.2 m)" in body, but in infobox: "Draught: 27 ft 0 in" (I'm not sure if this can be fixed, but I will mention it anyway for the sake of the review);
 * Fixed
 * "The ship's crew joined the general mutiny of the Baltic Fleet in Helsinki on 16 March 1917, after they received word of the February Revolution in Saint Petersburg". Do we know why they joined the mutiny? Was there any specific gripe, or were they just sympathetic to the general cause?
 * Nothing specific.
 * I think this needs a little more context: "The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk required the Soviets to evacuate their naval base at Helsinki in March 1918"...It probably only needs a short sentence explaining that as a result of the Revolution, the Russians came to terms with the Germans resulting in the signing of the Treaty;
 * Isn't that a bit far a field for this article? The link to the Treaty gives all the background necessary, IMO.
 * No worries, I'm not really sure that I agree, but I suppose it's minor. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "as the 'Ice Voyage'." I think the MOS asks for double quotations here, rather than single;
 * "After the October Revolution in 1918, the ship remained on active duty as part of the Red Navy". Probably need to explain that this was part of the Russian Civil War, and work in a link (it is linked in the lead, but not in the body);
 * If a link is provided in the lede, I believe that it suffices for the same term in the main body. That said, I've added a clause that she was retained on active duty during the civil war.
 * That's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Victoria Cross was awarded to..." Might need a short clause explaining what the Victoria Cross is. For instance maybe: "The Victoria Cross, Britain's highest military decoration, was awarded to..."
 * Good idea.
 * the external link titled "page in Russian Language" seems a bit ineligant. Is there perhaps a better way to identify it?
 * Indeed there is.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * all paragraphs are cited, all sources seem reliable;
 * in the References, you list Gardiner, but it is not cited specifically in the Notes. Could you work in a citation to it? Otherwise it should probably go into a Further reading section;
 * Done.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * in the infobox, the Career section lists the "Russian Empire", should this also include the "Soviet Union"?
 * Good idea.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * No issues.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, I believe that this article can be promoted to GA, however, there are a few minor issues above which I think should be rectified first. Happy to discuss any points if you disagree. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, passing now. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)