Talk:Russian monitor Latnik/GA1

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 23:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

, upon my initial review of this article, I feel it meets many of the criteria for Good Article status. I look forward to reviewing this article more thoroughly in the coming days. Thank you for all your stellar contributions to Wikipedia! Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime! -- Caponer (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead
 * In the last sentence of the lead, should it be clarified that the ship was scrapped by the Finns later that same year? It's evident in the infobox and in the article's prose further down, but it could also be mentioned in the lead.
 * Remember that the lede is only supposed to be a summary, so I don't think the actual date of scrapping is necessary. Especially since it's not exactly known.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Barzha No. 38 and Barzha No. 326 should probably both be mentioned in the lead.
 * Other than the two minor suggestions, there are no other items that need to be addressed in the lead.

Description
 * In the first paragraph, the conversion looks like it is off. I believe this should be corrected to read "1,500–1,600 long tons (1,524–1,626 t)".
 * The same issue occurs with regard to the amount of coal Latnik could carry: "190 long tons (190 t)". Shouldn't the ton conversion be slightly more than the long ton figure?
 * Rounding errors.
 * "nine-inch smoothbores" should have a metric conversion to mm.
 * It's converted on first use.
 * Other than the aforementioned small fixes, this section reads beautifully and I can find no other items that need to be addressed.

Career
 * Wiki-link Helsinki.

Overall
 * This article reads very well, and I must admit that this is my first article detailing a ship that I've reviewed, so please take that into account when looking over my comments and suggestions. I know you've probably already undertaken an exhaustive search of additional sources, but I would try to incorporate one more reference as there are only two internally cited within the prose. If another doesn't exist, this certainly isn't a deal-breaker., I commend you on another job well done crafting this article--it's been a privilege to review! -- Caponer (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sturmvogel 66, thank you for addressing all my above comments and suggestions. Upon my re-review of the article, I find it is ready for passage to Good Article status! Congratulations on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)