Talk:Soviet destroyer Statny (1939)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Parsecboy in topic GA Review
Soviet destroyer Statny (1939) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 15, 2019. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Soviet destroyer Statny (1939)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 00:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll get to this in the morning. Parsecboy (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Not much to nitpick:
- Might be worth clarifying who Stalin was
- "The ships were slightly overweight" - makes one wonder what the designed displacement was (or perhaps just what the difference between intended and actual displacement was)
- 41 tons overweight, not enough to be worth specifying the exact amount, IMO. But the Project 7s were overweight to begin with and this just made it worse. There's a great photo in the article of a 7U at sea in calm water with not a lot of freeboard, but, annoyingly, the text of the article doesn't really discuss freeboard issues at all or even give a figure for metacentric height, just a decrease of 30% between the 7 and 7U.
- Fair enough. Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- 41 tons overweight, not enough to be worth specifying the exact amount, IMO. But the Project 7s were overweight to begin with and this just made it worse. There's a great photo in the article of a 7U at sea in calm water with not a lot of freeboard, but, annoyingly, the text of the article doesn't really discuss freeboard issues at all or even give a figure for metacentric height, just a decrease of 30% between the 7 and 7U.
- "expending 111–130 mm" - this reads awkwardly - like they expended 111 to 130 shells - this is a case where I'd probably write out "one hundred and eleven"
Nice work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- All done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)