Wikipedia

Talk:Soviet cruiser Voroshilov/GA1

< Talk:Soviet cruiser Voroshilov
Latest comment: 14 years ago by AustralianRupert in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Technical review

edit
  •  

Criteria

edit
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
  • endashes are required for page ranges in the Notes and year ranges for the titles in the References section;
  • Done.
  • in the References section, "Roger Chesneau", I think should be "Chesneau, Roger";
  • Agreed.
  • there is a contraction "wasn't" in the Postwar section;
  • Fixed
  • the emdash in "11 October 1963 - 1 December 1965" in the Postwar section should be an endash;
  • Changed to "to" instead.
  • Note #2 "pp. 90" should only be "p. 90" if it is a single page;
  • Indeed
  • there is a mixture of British and US English, e.g. "millimeter" (US) and "Honours" (British); "harbor" (US); "Armour" (British);
  • Think I caught the last of these.
  • "Novorossiysk" is overlinked;
  • Fixed
  • "#3 magazine" - is this the proper name? If so, I think it should be capitalised;
  • I have no idea how the Soviets designated their turrets and their magazines, so I'm not sure if it's a proper noun or not.
  • in the Service section, there is quite a gap between the action on January 1943 and the sinking of the three destroyers - (1) what did the ship do between these dates, and (2) I think it should be a new paragraph after "the end of January 1943";
  • The writing could possibly be tightened a little, I think. For instance, this sentence: "The loss of three destroyers to air attack that were attempting to interdict the German evacuation of the Taman Bridgehead on 6 October 1943 caused Stalin to forbid the deployment of large naval units without his express permission which meant the end of Voroshilov's active participation in the war". (The issue here, I think is that it is using a passive voice. A suggestion might be: "Voroshilov was withdrawn from active operations, however, after the loss of three destroyers..." (It might pay to get Dank to take a look at the article prior to ACR);
  • I like your phrasing better; how does it read now? I don't really think that any of these articles are going past GA as I can't document their post-war histories hardly at all and would probably fail on completeness.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • In the Wartime modifications, this sentence might need to be reworded: "When war broke out in 1941 Voroshilov lacked any radars at all..." (at all doesn't seem to agree with lacked). Perhaps you could say, "Voroshilov was not fitted with radar prior to the war commencing, however, she later received three...";
  • How does it read now?
  • In the Postwar section, I think it should be a new paragraph;
  • is the Yakubov and Worth source a chapter in a book called "Warship 2009", or is it a book by itself as part of a series? If it is a chapter, the title should not be in italics, but should be displayed thusly: Yakubov, Vladimir (2009). "The Soviet Light Cruisers of the Kirov Class". In Jordan, John (ed.). Warship 2009. London: Conway. pp. 82–95. ISBN 978-1-84486-089-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) If it is a series, then I don't think you need to display the page numbers;
  • Fixed
  • publisher information should be added to the web citations if it is available.
  • Done.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  • Passes.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  • Project 26 is mentioned in the lead but no where else, perhaps it could be added to the Service section to provide some context to why the ship was built;
  • OK, lemme think on this one a bit.
  • I think some context should be added as to why the ship was involved in bombarding Constanta, i.e. following the German invasion, etc.
  • Done.
  • Is anything known about what the ship did after being withdrawn from operations in 1943?
  • Added, but it's not much.
  • In the Post war section, is anything known about prior to the modernization in 1954?
  • See above.
  • Passes.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  • Passes.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned):   b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):   c (non-free images have fair use rationales):   d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':  
  • Passes.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:  
  • There are a few things that I feel need to be done to bring this article up to GA status, however, I do not feel that these warrant a quick fail as I believe that they are able to be achieved within the required timeframe. As such I will place it on hold to see what changes are made before deciding upon the outcome. I'm prepared to accept any reasonable explainations of my concerns, and any changes will be taken into consideration, of course. Good work so far.
  • Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the {{Done}} tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet_cruiser_Voroshilov/GA1&oldid=385897567"