Talk:Soviet destroyer Serdity (1940)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soviet destroyer Serdity (1940)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 01:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 01:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Pass A few quibbles:

   • "after receiving a message that a German convoy had been spotted." -- Any idea of where that convoy was or how far away?

• Sadly no.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • "Postwar, the wreck was raised in pieces and towed to Tallinn for scrapping between 1949 and 1952.[6]" -- does this mean it was towed from 1949 to 1952 or scrapped from 1949 to 1952, or both?

• Both, I think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • Dab links and external links show no problem. Fixed one dup link and no others are problems. Copyvio tool shows green.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Offline sources accepted in good faith. A cursory check of the source material on Google in English sources backs up material cites in the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass Appropriate context included from ship class article; additional detail really only has a place there for consistency.

   • Would prefer to have a unit cost, but records on this subject aren't common in the source material as I understand it.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass Healthy mix of book sources, in both Russian language and English text. No over-reliance on any one historian or source material.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass One image included under public domain tag where appropriate.

7. Other:

   Pass A few smaller details that could be clarified, but overall not by themselves enough to place the article on hold. So, passing for GA with comments noted above. Well done. —Ed!^(talk) 05:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)