Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Hi. This is my first GA review, so PLEASE correct me on anything that needs to be fixed.
All MoS aspects look ok, and spell check in word went fine, but I'd like an Second Opinion on this section.
Decent article, fun to read, hope that this will make it ( WP:OMT needs a lot of work). Good luck in the cup, also. Buggie111 ( talk) 03:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer:
Buggie111 (
talk) 03:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you got mixed up between the class article, which you claimed, and the ship article, which is this one, on the
WP:GAN page. You need to fix it to prevent confusion and to get your second opinion directed to the right place.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
07:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll weigh in here since you asked for a second opinion. Thanks for taking it on- we need more GA reviewers! At a glance, the content of the article appears OK to me (as a non-expert on the subject) and all the images check out. My main concern is the references- I assume that's a book being cited? If so, it should have author's full name, title, publication date and, most importantly, ISBN. Also, it would b nice to see one or two online sources so that readers can quickly verify the information, though I appreciate the difficulty of this with the age of the subject. I'd also suggest that another image wouldn't do any harm since there are a few on Commons. I'll watch this page and drop back in a day or so, but feel free to drop me a line if you want me sooner. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope tehse comments help. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC).
The largest concern I have with this article is the lack of breadth of sources. McLoughlin could have seriously overlooked large chunks of information and you have no extensive sources supplementing him. Historians rarely get cover everything in one bout. Also, the prose does have some problems (See above comments). Sadads ( talk) 00:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any major issues here - but I am not an expert.
Anyway, what I find irritating is the use of measurements. There are probably three different systems of measurement used here. I am not sure whether one needs to have every nautical unit converted into the imperial and metric every time. It makes for difficult reading.
Along the same lines I would suggest to stick to one system as the primary one. It's a bit confusing to have a 13 inch gun next to a 130 mm one.
On the other hand, I would rather use the old style dates prior to 1918, as that was the style used in Russia at the time. As far as I am aware, they can easily be converted to show both Old and new stlye. After 1918 it's obvious that it's new style. I am just thinking of some insufferable know-it-alls, who miss the footnote and think we got the dates all wrong.
Apart from that, a link to Siege of Sevastopol (1941–1942) rather than World War II would be more appopriate at the end, I believe. -- Dodo19 ( talk) 12:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Everything seems to have been fixed. This is now a GA! Buggie111 ( talk) 22:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Hi. This is my first GA review, so PLEASE correct me on anything that needs to be fixed.
All MoS aspects look ok, and spell check in word went fine, but I'd like an Second Opinion on this section.
Decent article, fun to read, hope that this will make it ( WP:OMT needs a lot of work). Good luck in the cup, also. Buggie111 ( talk) 03:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer:
Buggie111 (
talk) 03:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you got mixed up between the class article, which you claimed, and the ship article, which is this one, on the
WP:GAN page. You need to fix it to prevent confusion and to get your second opinion directed to the right place.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
07:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll weigh in here since you asked for a second opinion. Thanks for taking it on- we need more GA reviewers! At a glance, the content of the article appears OK to me (as a non-expert on the subject) and all the images check out. My main concern is the references- I assume that's a book being cited? If so, it should have author's full name, title, publication date and, most importantly, ISBN. Also, it would b nice to see one or two online sources so that readers can quickly verify the information, though I appreciate the difficulty of this with the age of the subject. I'd also suggest that another image wouldn't do any harm since there are a few on Commons. I'll watch this page and drop back in a day or so, but feel free to drop me a line if you want me sooner. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope tehse comments help. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC).
The largest concern I have with this article is the lack of breadth of sources. McLoughlin could have seriously overlooked large chunks of information and you have no extensive sources supplementing him. Historians rarely get cover everything in one bout. Also, the prose does have some problems (See above comments). Sadads ( talk) 00:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any major issues here - but I am not an expert.
Anyway, what I find irritating is the use of measurements. There are probably three different systems of measurement used here. I am not sure whether one needs to have every nautical unit converted into the imperial and metric every time. It makes for difficult reading.
Along the same lines I would suggest to stick to one system as the primary one. It's a bit confusing to have a 13 inch gun next to a 130 mm one.
On the other hand, I would rather use the old style dates prior to 1918, as that was the style used in Russia at the time. As far as I am aware, they can easily be converted to show both Old and new stlye. After 1918 it's obvious that it's new style. I am just thinking of some insufferable know-it-alls, who miss the footnote and think we got the dates all wrong.
Apart from that, a link to Siege of Sevastopol (1941–1942) rather than World War II would be more appopriate at the end, I believe. -- Dodo19 ( talk) 12:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Everything seems to have been fixed. This is now a GA! Buggie111 ( talk) 22:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)