Talk:Russian battleship Pobeda/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 04:16, 21 September 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 action required).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action required).
 * Linkrot: external links check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: Images lack 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):
 * "under her own power despite an 11° List...", should list really be capitalised?
 * This seems a little awkward to me: "After the end of the war, she was refloated by Japanese engineers on 17 October 1905, reconstructed and taken into service as Suwo,[12] taking her name from the ancient Japanese province Suo Province, now part of Yamaguchi Prefecture." Perhaps consider something like: "After the end of the war, she was refloated by Japanese engineers on 17 October 1905 and was reconstructed and taken into service as Suwo, taking her name from the ancient Japanese province Suo Province (now part of Yamaguchi Prefecture)." (suggestion only)
 * "and she had her fighting tops removed...", consider more simply "and had her fighting tops removed..."


 * 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:
 * Images used are all in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Looks good, only a couple of very minor points above to deal with / discuss. Otherwise it meets all the GA criteria in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All fixed, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Passing review now, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)