Talk:Soviet cruiser Kaganovich/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
This looks to be quite a reasonable in respect of Construction but there are a few minor points that need to be addressed first.


 * Construction -
 * I moved the Kirov class cruiser wikilink to Main. Without that link, this section is somewhat incomplete and confusing, i.e. "a pair", sister and half-sister are not otherwise explained.
 * As it now stands, I consider this section to be acceptable for a GA-class article.


 * Service -
 * The first and a half sentences are quite similar to one in Construction:
 * I'm not sure why this information needs to be repeated in a modified form and why it is in the Service section.
 * It shouldn't have been there. I've the duplication in Construction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to consider the "accepted into fleet" as a part of Service, but its not clear why the late delivery aspects are?
 * Not sure what you mean here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Its also not clear if these delays are in date sequence, but I suspect not, the Dock 8 girder collapse is dated to December 1942, but not the delays with the propellers and propshafts
 * I've given dates for the western factory issues to clarify the sequence here.
 * My, perhaps unkind, thoughts were that there was inadequate information in Service and that information that aught to be in Construction had been moved across to pad it out.


 * '''WP:Lead -
 * Appears to be OK.

At this stage I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Construction was a bit of a misnomer and I've renamed it Description instead. See what you think of the changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Much better. Pyrotec (talk) 08:03, 25 April 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:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)