Talk:Soviet cruiser Komintern

Merge?

Shouldn't this article be merged with the other article on the very same ship (Russian cruiser Pamiat Merkuria)? //Halibutt 02:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the independent service here could warrant an article, so long as there is a little more context about the ship's past. —Ed!^(talk) 15:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that they should be merged, once I dig up more information on Pamiat Merkuria to match what I have here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I confirm the fact that the ship is one and the same as the Russian cruiser Pamiat Merkuria, but under different name. For a short period it also was named as Hetman Ivan Mazepa. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soviet cruiser Komintern/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 15:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• No dab links.
• The ship needs a little background to make the article a little more complete. Add a brief section on its original specifications and maybe a line or two about what the ship did before it was redesignated. As-is, it seems abrupt and incomplete without context.
  • I've added a description section. Detailed activities before she became a training cruiser are lacking, but I presume it was the usual training.
• "Once she fell into Soviet hands she spent several years under repair, which required parts and material from her sisters that were even more damaged, including machinery from the Bogatyr, before they were scrapped." - run-on sentence.
  • Shortened.
• "She was severely damaged again by another German air attack on 16 July at Poti that she was deemed non-repairable." - something missing here.
  • Fixed.

That's all I've got. Will check back soon. —Ed!^(talk) 15:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)