Talk:Russian battleship Ekaterina II/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 04:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Great work. Perhaps more sources, however.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Great prose and grammar!

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I would like a couple more sources, although not necessary.

   Outside of Russian-language sources there's not much more of use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

   If he wants some, I can go get some. I have Red Mutiny, which would only be ambigous to the current stuff, and some russian books. Buggie111 (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

   I've added in some more stuff. Buggie111 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

   Good work, Sturm. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 21:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Excellent on this point.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV throughout.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars evident on history.

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):

   All with appropriate fair use rationales and excellent descriptive captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Passed. Good work.