Talk:Russian monitor Rusalka/GA1

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 19:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * There's a mix of BrEng and AmEng, particularly in the units in the discovery section.
 * The lead is a bit short - might want to include her class, that a monument was built for her crew, and perhaps a line about the exact cause of her sinking to be unknown (and perhaps that a new theory has been put forth following the discovery of the wreck)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * In the monument section - Reval wasn't Tallinn until 1917
 * 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):
 * File:Rusalka1890Helsimgfors.jpg - needs a US PD tag
 * Why not add a picture of the Rusalka memorial and merge the two Commons boxes?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Why not add a picture of the Rusalka memorial and merge the two Commons boxes?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I think that I've fixed all of these, although I'm not sure what you mean about combining the Commons boxes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Like so. Looks good now, passing for GA. Parsecboy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't know you could do that!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)