Talk:Russian battleship Ekaterina II/GA1

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

Reviewer: WikiCopter (radio &bull; sorties &bull;  images &bull;  shot down) 04:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Great work. Perhaps more sources, however.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Great prose and grammar!
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I would like a couple more sources, although not necessary.
 * Outside of Russian-language sources there's not much more of use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If he wants some, I can go get some. I have Red Mutiny, which would only be ambigous to the current stuff, and some russian books. Buggie111 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added in some more stuff. Buggie111 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work, Sturm. WikiCopter (radio &bull; sorties &bull;  images &bull;  shot down) 21:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Excellent on this point.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV throughout.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars evident on history.
 * 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):
 * All with appropriate fair use rationales and excellent descriptive captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Passed. Good work.