Talk:Russian battleship Tsesarevich

Another pic at http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ggb2005014807/ this time entering portsmouth harbour.©Geni 18:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian battleship Tsesarevich/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC) I'll have a crack at this one shortly. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	need to add convert templates throughout, esp in protection subsection. Fair enough re the repeated measurements, but 12" is not converted in the body of the article and needs to be.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	OK.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	OK.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	OK.
	2c. it contains no original research.	OK.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	OK.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	OK.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	OK.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	OK.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	OK.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good article. I made a few minor changes to spelling, prose and grammar. I suggest you add a convert template for 12 inch. Passed

If you'll look more closely, I only convert a number the first time its used, not every time. I might have missed one or two, but I'm certain that the rest were converted earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Photo

This photo is fairly low quality, but it may be worth adding to the article, since it's public domain. Parsecboy (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

An alturnative higher res option:

http://www.loc.gov/item/ggb2005014807/

©Geni (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Kronstadt rebellion

What was the status of the ship during the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion if it was hulked (1918) but not scrapped (1924, per article)? Paul Avrich wrote in Kronstadt, 1921, p. 151, "Besides the Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol, moreover, eight other warships lay in the Kronstadt harbot and repair docks, including a battleship and three heavy cruisers as well as fifteen gunboats and twenty tugs. Because no icebreaker was available, however, none of these vessels could be brought into action." Would this be that inaccessible battleship? It isn't mentioned by name in the book. I was curious because this image says it was damaged in the 1921 (post-Civil War) fighting. czar 01:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)