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

Reviewer: Dana boomer ( talk · contribs) 22:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my initial comments up shortly. Dana boomer ( talk) 22:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   • Design and description, "This unusual arrangement gave the ship her unusual nickname of Factory" - unusual...unusual

   • Oh my, yes.

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):

   • File:RUS Battleship Navarin.jpg has absolutely no information, and a copyright tag that only applies if we know the death date of the author.

   • This photo wasn't even in the article, but I'm now using File:Battleship Navarin.jpg which is sourced to Cassell's History of the Russo-Japanese War, published in 1905.

   • The same applies to File:RUS Battleship Navarin underway.jpg

   • Deleted this one.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

One prose niggle and (the main reason I'm holding instead of immediately passing) both images have licensing problems. Once these are addressed, I think the article should be good to go. Dana boomer ( talk) 23:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the review.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC) reply

OK, everything looks good, so now passing to GA. Dana boomer ( talk) 17:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply