Talk:Russian ironclad Petr Veliky/GA1

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

Reviewer: Brunswick Dude (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC) This review will be left open until February 10th 2011, unless the few issues are resolved earlier. Whomever solves them, please kindly drop a line at my talk page so that I can review the improvement made and hopefully pass the article.--Brunswick Dude (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Although I cannot have access to the sources I will AGF the editor, who seems to be specialized in battleships articles and has a long list of well established edits in the area.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * After some copy-editing, IMO the article meets the criteria.
 * 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):
 * ) When someone who has no clue about the battleships in general and wants to read about them, an article that is so detailed in scope about technicalities should give IMO some information that the ship never participated in a war, and if it is somehow given, probably it should be a little more accentuated. It was obsolete since the beginning, Ok, then its reconstruction was delayed from the Russo-Japanese war, Ok, and then it was used for training. Can we say that it never participated in a conflict somewhere in the article?) --Brunswick Dude (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No problems here.
 * 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) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede observation and suggestion
Lede should be of two paragraphs, because the article is sufficiently long to warrant it. I suggest that the existing one be lengthened a little with more detail and then split in two parts, one for the 1869-1905 period and the other for the 1905-scrapping, but it's just a suggestion. More than two paragraphs would be even better, but one is unacceptable for a good article. Besides the author has made a phenomenal job about the technicalities, they should have some space in the lede as well, so probably some more detail about them would be helpful. As a general note, a very good number of people don't read the article at all, they just read the lede, so such a well written article would deserve a good lede. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede has been split and the fact that she did not fight during the Russo-Turkish War clarified. It's almost impossible to summarize the technical details so I never put them in the lede. Just so you know there's no requirement for two or more paragraphs in the lede for a good article. I've written quite a few about ships that had very uneventful careers that only have a single paragraph, as you can see on my user page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with your changes and please accept my congratulations for this very well researched article, which deserves, in my opinion, the GA status. Promoted. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)