Talk:Admiral Spiridov-class monitor/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 15:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   One dupe link

   By late 1863, the Russian Admiralty Board had begun planning for the second generation of ironclads to succeed those ships then under construction and ordered eight ships, two fully rigged seagoing types and six coastal defense ships, in March 1864 - I'd probably split this, one sentence on the planning for new ships and the other on the actual order.

   link to watertight compartment

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Done and thanks for reviewing all these. I'll see if I can return the favor shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem at all - I had some free time at work and figured I'd try to clear out some easy GA reviews. Parsecboy (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)