Talk:Russian battleship Imperatritsa Ekaterina Velikaya/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * 1) Scuttle is a disamb link
 * Fixed
 * 1) Measurements in the text claim she was 168 meters (551 ft 2 in) long but the inf box has 169.47 m (556 ft 0 in)
 * Fixed
 * 1) Also Her secondary armament consisted of twenty 130-millimeter in the text and 18 × 1 - 130-millimeter in the inf box
 * Fixed
 * 1) Three days later she encountered the ex-German battlecruiser Yavuz should that not be the Ottoman Empire battlecruiser ?
 * She was at best nominally Turkish as her crew remained German, but I agree that it's probably simplest to call her Ottoman.
 * 1) Ref 11 Breyer, Siegfried could be formatted the same as the other refs and added to the bibliography
 * Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Passed --Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)