Talk:Soviet destroyer Strogy (1939)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soviet destroyer Strogy (1939)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 03:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Taking a look. —Ed!^(talk) 03:00, 14 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:

   Dup links, dab links and external links tools all show no problems. Copyvio tool returns green.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Offline references accepted in good faith. Cursory check of Google Books shows references that back up source material here.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

   • "Strogy and several of her sisters were rebuilt as Project 32 rescue and decontamination ships" -- Might be worth it to mention which ones were converted. Was there ever a purpose-built class for this purpose?

• Seems a little out of bounds for a ship article and better discussed in the class article. Not to my knowledge.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • "she received two direct hits from an artillery battery on 26 November, killing one and wounding two sailors." -- Any indication of ship damage as well?

• Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • "expended 1167 and 979 130 mm shells in 1942 and 1943, respectively. ... She expended a total of 4,669 shells..." -- consistency needed in the article as to commas or none in larger figures.

• Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • Modifications indicates believed obsolescence but might be good to add in Postwar service where it can be chronological. If possible, might be good to indicate what advances/classes supplanted this one.

• By this time the Soviets had built 10 Ognevoy-class and 70 Skory-class DDs, so it seems pretty obvious, but my sources do not specifically say why they thought the Type 7Us were obsolete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass Multiple references given an appropriate balance between them.

2. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

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

   Pass One image tagged PD where appropriate.

4. Other:

   On Hold Pending a few minor things. —Ed!^(talk) 03:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Pass Thanks as always! —Ed!^(talk) 00:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)