Talk:Soviet destroyer Sposobny (1970)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: L293D (talk · contribs) 23:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Will do. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:BPK61Strogiy1985.jpg is in Russian and looks out of place on the en.wiki article. I don't know if you speak Russian, but maybe you could take File:Strogiy.jpg and redo the notations in English.

• Working on it.

Source review

• All sources look reliable, though of course I can't check even the online ones.

Lead

• The ship served during the Cold War from 1971. - This sentence is a bit short, could you add when it stopped serving in the Russian navy? This would read like "The ship served during the Cold War from 1971 to 1995"

• Added end date.

• They were the first class designed to survive a nuclear explosion - Were they the first class of ships in the world designed to survive a nuke? Or the first in Russia?

• Clarified

• Link relevant article for the fall of the Soviet Union.

• Done

Construction and Service

• Link relevant article for the fall of the Soviet Union.

• Done.

• I would have liked to have the Image notation done before promoting, but that is not an essential part of the criteria so Ill pass this. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.