Talk:Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)/GA1

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 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) The citations need looking at date of publications should be added as per WP:CITESHORT and p not pg for page.
 * Done.
 * 1) Reference 2 Suliga, S. (1993). "Battleships of Poltava type". Technika Molodezhi: 32. needs formatting correctly and the book added to the bibliography
 * Deleted.
 * 1) What make reference 26 reliable http://www.navy.ru/history/si31.htm
 * Since it's written by the Russian Navy? Buggie111 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Same with reference 27 http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/rjw_sea/10.htm
 * Will try to replace. Buggie111 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted.
 * 1) Reference 7 needs an access date
 * Done
 * 1) In the lede She was captained by Nikolai Essen and Nikolai Chernishev were they captains at the same time?
 * Not relevant to the lede.
 * 1) after the major battle at Sevastopol - can it be linked to the article and major battle could be POV as it was the Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855)
 * Done.
 * 1) In the design section it reads including four with 305 mm guns but the inf box has it as 4 × 12-inch (305 mm) guns. The convert template should be used for the 305 mm and you need to decide which measurement your going to use first. I understand its normally the countries unit of measurement.
 * Done.
 * 1) Where did the and the 203 mm guns were replaced with contemporary canet guns 203 mm guns come from this is their first mention and there not in the inf box
 * Deleted.
 * 1) In the text it reads cruising speed of 16.8 knots (19.3 mph; 31.1 km/h) but the inf box has Speed: 	16.8 knots (19.3 mph; 31.1 km/h). The inf box is for the maximum speed so this needs looking at or qualifying
 * Done.
 * 1) Again in the Characteristics section the guns metric/imperial measurements and the inf box being the other way round needs looking at
 * Generally English units were used by the Russian Navy, but the 47 and 37-mm guns were imported from France and retained their metric measurements in Russian service.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Her underwater defense consisted of six torpedo tubes - what were they defending against underwater, are torpedoes not offensive weapons ? and what size torpedoes were fitted
 * Fixed.
 * 1) In the Construction section again Sevastopol, named after the major battle at Sevastopol link to siege and major battle
 * Done.
 * 1) The ceremony was attended by Alexander III of Russia and then Tsesarevich Nicholas II - did they not come together ? should it not read and the then
 * Yes, it should read "the then". Buggie111 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Should these two sentences be reversed - Sevastopol was launched on 1 June 1895. After completion of the hull and decks in 1898'' - Was the hull not completed prior to launch
 * Deck wasn't. Buggie111 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) where she was installed with armour and artillery - artillery is not normally used in connection with naval weapons
 * Fixed.
 * 1) In the pre war section - On October 16, 1899, Sevastopol was released on an official test, which was interrupted because of the failure of a steering actuator - why was she released sounds as if she was being held captive and can steering actuator be linked
 * Fixed.
 * 1) During a three-hour test on July 11, 1900 earlier in the article the date format is written the European way Construction on the three ships began on 7 May 1892 - can you choose one you like and change them to be all the same
 * Standardized.
 * 1) sister ships were re-stationed at Port Arthur in 1900 - when were they stationed there previously ? do you mean transferred - moved etc
 * Fixed.
 * 1) First Pacific Squadron, which was the current port of the First Squadron of the Russian Pacific Fleet. - is the First Pacific Squadron and the First Squadron different ? and they could be linked even if only red links
 * They redirect to Pacific Fleet.
 * 1) There is a lot of mentions of her sisters Sevastopol and her sisters remember this is an article about the Sevastopol and not the ships class. Repeated mentions unless warranted are getting off focus.
 * Trimmed down, see what you think?
 * 1) In the wartime service section - the Japanese Navy launched a surprise attack on the Russian fleet at Port Arthur can this be linked ?
 * Linked.
 * 1) that wounded two on her bridge - two men
 * Agreed.
 * 1) Do we need two refs for She was put into repair for six weeks.[19][16]
 * Why does it hurt? Buggie111 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The next sentence -Her sister ship Poltava was put into repair at the same time because of a collision is way off focus
 * Deleted.
 * 1) and Sevastopol suffered several shell hits in their upper sections - several shell hits in her superstructure
 * Agreed.
 * 1) can Prince Pavel Ukhtomski be linked
 * Even if it's red? Sure. Buggie111 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Japanese Army should be linked at the first use
 * Done.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Japanese battery - Japanese artillery battery
 * Done.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) at that time about 5.7 km away from the hill - use convert template 5.7 km
 * Done.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) By December 9, four battleships and two cruisers had been sunk by the army - can the ships be linked
 * 2) Within the defensive surroundings of White Wolf, Nikolai Essen - Captain Nikolai Essen and linked on the first use after the lede
 * Fixed.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 11:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) started to plan a blockade run to Vladivostok or a rendezvous with the Second Pacific Squadron - started to plane how to break the blockade
 * 2) ordered six separate waves of destroyers to sink the battleship - no need for separate
 * Removed.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) His other option, a run to Vladivostok, had already been eliminated due to the situation in his propellers after the torpedo hit. - does not make sense what situation
 * Would "the damage in his propellers" be better? Buggie111 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) was also scuttled at Port Arthur and re-floated as the Japanese Tango. - was re-floated and named Tango by the Japanese
 * As I remember, it could be either way, but I'll fix it. Buggie111 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It could do with a copy edit - can I suggest you ask the Guild to look it over or User:Dank sometimes works on ship articles.

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) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Buggie's asked me to take this over as he's been forced to take a break for a month or so. Gimme a little time to look this over and try and deal with your comments, although I don't have my best Russian source to hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed most everything. Let me know what remains.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out Sturm. I just got McLaughlin, and I expect to be on pretty soon. Thanks for all of your work. Buggie111 (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Passed Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)