Talk:Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Was this ship not part of a class?

   • Nope.

   • Lead, "Laid down in February 1888,[Note 1] launched in September 1890, she was commissioned in December 1892, and decommissioned and disarmed in 1911 before becoming a submarine depot ship in 1912." This doesn't flow well, and needs to be reworded. Possibly split into two sentences?

   • I agree.

   • In the one paragraph lead there are three sentences that start with "she was" and one that starts with "she served". Repetition.

   • There are still seven repetitions of the word "she" in the one paragraph, which makes it very repetitive to read. It's not something to hold the review up over, though.

   • Design, "might otherwise trim by the head". What?
   • General characteristics, "but has been estimated at 8,710 long tons (8,850 t) at load" Does "at load" mean fully loaded?

   • It's confusing and varied by navy by time. Generally seems to mean some portion of fuel and ammunition, but not all.

   • Armament, "could depress 5°" Is this "could depress to 10 degrees"? Again with "depress 8°"

   • I suppose depress to -10° is clearer.

   • Armament, "One tube in the bow, two tubes on each broadside and a tube in the stern." is not a complete sentence. Perhaps "These included one tube..."
   • Protection, "was below the waterline as actually completed." I see a mention in the design section of the thickness being changed, but not the amount below the waterline.
   • The Construction section is really short. Why couldn't this be merged with the History section (which isn't exactly so long as to need to be split).

   • Lemme think about this; normally I split them because all the normal delays, etc. while building add up to a reasonably-sized paragraph.

   • Both in the lead and in the History section, "She was captured by both sides during the Russian Civil War," How exactly did this happen? It's really not clear how the transfer went back and forth, and if the ship was participating in any action or just sitting in the harbor and whoever held the harbor held her.

   • She's pretty much just sitting there. But I will clarify.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • Gardiner is listed in the Bibliography but not used as a short form reference.

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):

   • Lead photo caption, "That's not a bowsprit protruding over her bow, but her mooring boom" seems a little...colloquially worded. Perhaps "Protruding over her bow is a mooring boom, not a bowsprit."?

   • What can I say? I'm a pretty casual kinda guy. But your wording is better.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A few comments on prose, plus one each on references and an image caption. Once these are finished, the article should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll revise it shortly in accordance with your comments as I noted above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

All done, see how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good, one minor comment on the prose, but not enough to hold up the review over. I'm now passing this article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)