Talk:Russian battleship Sinop/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * No citation errors, no dab links, external links check out (no action req);
 * I have made a couple of changes, please check to see that you are happy with them;
 * They're fine, although I'm not sure that 1900s needs to be linked.
 * Don't think I linked 1900s (did I?), I agree there is no need for that. Anotherclown (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Use of the word 'she' in the lead and throughout the article is a little repetitive;
 * A persistent problem of mine. I think that I've mixed things up better now.
 * Yep, looks fine. Anotherclown (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this phrase (in the last para of the history section) could be reworded: "but the fleet never did this." Maybe.... 'however this operation never took place.' or something similar.
 * How does it read now?
 * Looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This sentence is a fairly bold statement: "...as they abandoned the Whites." Maybe reword to avoid any possible POV issues?
 * It's pretty hard to see it as anything else since the Brits withdrew all support and ships from the Whites in the south with very little notice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, telling it like it was... but maybe it could be 'softened'... perhaps 'withdrew support for the Whites' or something similar. Anotherclown (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little concerned about the blog you have used as ref 13 (Ringis)... can you add something else to back it up to establish that it is a reliable source?
 * It's not a blog at all. It's an online newspaper or somesuch. I looked for more info from Ballard, but he has almost nothing on it. I did confirm that he made an expedition to the Black Sea at that time, but I think that the Ukrainians are the ones pushing the ID as Sinop. But since I don't know how the data was divided up, I can't say if he agrees with them or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall, this is a good article with just a couple of minor issues to fix before I intend on passing. Anotherclown (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * All issues resolved, plus you picked up a couple of MOS issues I missed (I will leave the last point re the British and the Whites up to you). IMO this is a good article and I'm happy to promote it. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)