Talk:Soviet destroyer Strashny/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 16:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'll take this one. A first review should be up in the next few days. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   I've copyedited a bit, and the prose is now at a good standard. The article complies with the relevant section of MoS. A couple of notes: first, the text said she was built in yard 519, but the infobox said 518; since the article on Stoyky says that she was built in 518, I'm guessing that 519 is correct here, and I've edited the infobox to match the text, but I'd appreciate the nominator's confirmation. Second, in describing the gauge of the ship's armaments, the article sometimes follows standard English conventions by hyphenating the measurement ("130-millimeter B-13 guns") but sometimes does not ("her 130 mm guns"). I would just silently hyphenate them all, except that, looking into it, it seems as though gauges often are not hyphenated, as e.g. in the title of the article 9 mm caliber. I feel that the article should be consistent, but I actually can't tell which convention should hold, and I didn't find anything about this in WikiProject Military History's style guide. Thoughts from the nominator?

   MOS:Hyphen #3 covers this. The important thing here is a hyphen is not used when the unit of measurement is abbreviated. 519 is correct.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

   Thanks for the guidance! It looks like the article is in compliance. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   None of the sources cited is online, and I'm afraid I don't read Russian, but other sources that are online appear to confirm the general outline of the article, along with various details. This source appears to say that Strashny struck the mine on 2 July 1941 rather than 16 July, but it appears to be the only one making this claim. Earwig's tool doesn't reveal any copyvio issues with online sources. AGF for the offline sources, the article appears to be well supported.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers the major points of the ship's construction, WWII service, and history after the war without straying into excessive detail. The infobox omits the date she received her commission; is it not known?

   The Soviets used several terms equivalent to commissioned, of which accepted is one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

   In that case, I note that the infobox on Stoyky has both a date when she was "completed" (which matches the body's date when she was "accepted") and a later date when she was "commissioned" (which matches the body's date when she was assigned to a fleet). Should that article be adjusted so that the date of "acceptance" is given in the infobox under "commissioned"? Is there a step in the Soviet process that would correspond to "completion" that is distinct from the ship's launching and "acceptance"? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

   I think that we've got different sources using different definitions of "commissioned". My best English-language source calls acceptances commissioning dates. Berezhnoy doesn't appear to use commissioning at all, only acceptances, as does Platonov. Some navies will commission a ship before it's run its sea trials while other ones wait until afterwards, so "it's complicated". So I think that I'm going to change the commissioning date for Stoyky to '40 so we can at least be consistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

   Sounds like a good solution. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The tone is appropriately neutral and does not show favor.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The sole image is relevant and has an appropriate license. I don't immediately see any other relevant images on Commons.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A solid article that will definitely be able to reach GA with a little more polish! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

   All significant concerns have been addressed; this article is hereby promoted to GA! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)