Talk:Russian battleship Imperator Pavel I/GA1

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The line about her commissioning and trials should be reversed, i.e., "the ship was commissioned in March 1911 but did not complete sea trials until..."
 * Let me double-check McLaughlin, but I think that it is correct as written.
 * Oh, I wasn't saying it was wrong, I was commenting on the chronological order - it sounds odd to say "in November I did xxxxxx but last July I did xxxxxxx." The sentence would flow better if you put it in chronological order. Parsecboy (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, rewritten.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Halpern has a bit on page 190 that should be incorporated
 * Lemme check when I get home.
 * Have you had a look at this yet? Parsecboy (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since McLaughlin is the only source cited, the others should be moved to a "further reading" section.
 * 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:
 * The article is in pretty good shape, just a few things that need fixing. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article is in pretty good shape, just a few things that need fixing. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is in pretty good shape, just a few things that need fixing. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)