Talk:Russian battleship Rostislav/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:38, 24 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) Reference style to be consistent they should all look the same Nos 9 and 15 for example. No 9 Melnikov 2006, p. 4. has a at the end while No 15 Silverstone, p. 366 does not.
 * Fixed
 * 1) Melnikov 2006 has the year added after the name, while the other authors do not
 * Fixed
 * 1) Mixture of dates on cite web ref 18 is formatted Retrieved 15 August 2010. while ref 60 is Retrieved 2010-06-30.
 * Fixed
 * 1) In the bibliography Shirokorad does not see to have been used
 * Moved to further reading.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Enjoyed reading this one, some of the battles etc I had never heard of so it was something new. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed GA --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)