Talk:Soviet cruiser Molotov/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kevin Murray (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions/Comments:
 * 1) I woould split the lead into two paragraphs at: She was extensively modernized.
 * Done
 * 1) Can you find an alternative to "She was" for beginning sentences?
 * Done
 * 1) The photo seems weak and there is a fairly clear photo at: File:Molotov-1.jpg.  Why would you not use that?
 * Done
 * 1) The first sentence of the Description section seems a bit long.  Irt conveys the message, but I might reorder it for better flow.   That's not always easy.
 * How does it read now.
 * 1) There is too much going on in the first paragraph too. I'd break it into a couple of paragraphs.  I assume that there is not enough information to expand this into several sections.  There isn't much ore to this paragraph than could be handled in a chart.
 * Done
 * 1) It would be nice to know what the improvements were from the Proj. 26 to Proj. 26b, and how the 26 series evolved from prior designs and why. Were they successful in their objective?  How did they compare to international contemporaries?
 * Most of that material is covered in the class article.
 * 1) Why were the 47mm guns swapped for 37mm?
 * They were fully automatic, the 45 mm guns were only semi-automatic.
 * 1) "She landed her catapult" becomes clear in the context of the paragraph, but seems like unnecessary jargon, that distracts the reader from the flow -- why not use standard words like "removed"
 * Done
 * 1) might talk a bit more about the radar. Being the only ship in the navy with it seems pertinent
 * Don't know much more about it. It's function is the most important thing anyways.
 * 1) In both the WWII and Postwar sections, there is no continuity to the paragraphs. They seem to flow like a timeline with random breaks.  I know that this isn't easy, but is there a way to make the prose something more than a string of dates and facts?  I don't think that this is a bad article, but how can you grab the reader's interest and bring some continuity to the story?
 * Don't have much of the interstitial information that would be needed to make it flow more smoothly. You're welcome to make a stab at it yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 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 think this has met the standards for GA acceptance. It is about as good as it can get without more information, which is likely dificult to obtain. Not everything that I suggested could be done, but those suggestions far exceeded the GA requirements. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)