Talk:Russian monitor Strelets/GA1

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 13:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. -- West Virginian   (talk)  13:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I assess that it meets the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have some comments and suggestions that should first be addressed. Thank you for your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian   (talk)  13:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the monitor, establishes the monitor's necessary context, and explains why the monitor is otherwise notable.
 * The info box for the monitor is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
 * For a more comprehensive lede, I would recommend adding some additional content form the "Description" section, perhaps mentioning the ship's displacement or its maximum speed at sea trials.
 * The image of Strelets has been released into the public domain and it is therefore acceptable for use in this article.
 * I would recommend adding an alternative caption per the guidance outlined at Alternative text for images. If this is not doable with the ship info box template, then please disregard this recommendation.
 * While a wiki-link to Streltsy is listed as the monitor's namesake in the info box, there is no statement below in the prose with an inline citation. I would recommend incorporating this below into the "Description" section with an inline citation.
 * The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Description
 * Displaced should be wiki-linked to Displacement (ship)
 * I would also recommending wiki-linking Long ton as it is a measurement some readers may be unfamiliar with
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Construction and career
 * In the third paragraph, I'd recommend adding a comma in the natural pause following "On 21 July 1875"
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.


 * Thanks for your timely review. I've done most of what you pointed out, but alt text is only a suggestion, not a requirement and adding specific details to the admittedly short lede seems rather redundant to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sturmvogel 66, thank you for your timely response to my comments and questions. Upon my re-review of my article, I find that you've incorporated most of my suggestions and I hereby pass this article to Good Article status. Congratulations on another job well done! -- West Virginian   (talk)  02:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)