Talk:Soviet cruiser Kaganovich/GA1

GA Review

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

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

---

An informative well-referenced article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

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