Talk:Russian battleship Peresvet/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 13:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action required).
 * Linkrot: external links check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: Image lacks alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905 is specifically mentioned in the lead but not the body of the article. You talk about its events in the body but it might add context if it was specifically mentioned (perhaps as the last sentence of the first paragraph in the "Russian career" section).
 * I changed "second day of the war" to "second day of the Russo-Japanese War"; how does that work?
 * Yes the works fine. Anotherclown (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems a little awkward: "About 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi) north of the harbor, the ship struck two mines, one forward and the other abreast a boiler room, on 4 January 1917 that had been laid by the submarine SM U-73 and sank with the loss of 167 lives after catching fire." Perhaps consider something like: "About 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi) north of the harbor, the ship struck two mines, one forward and the other abreast a boiler room, on 4 January 1917 that had been laid by the submarine SM U-73 and sank after catching fire with the loss of 167 lives."
 * Good idea.
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS.
 * Consistent citation style used throughout.
 * No issues with OR.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.


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


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * All recent edits look constructive.
 * 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:
 * Image used is in the public domain and seems appropriate for the article.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This article is in excellent shape, only a couple of very minor points above. Anotherclown (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Looks good, passing review now. Anotherclown (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)