Talk:Soviet destroyer Stoyky (1938)/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, just to be sure this isn't a typographical error, is a "mine protector" a thing? (I expose my ignorance of naval matters!) 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 ("four 130 mm shells"). 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?

   See MOS:Hyphen which states that they're not used when the measurements are abbreviated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

   Ah! I appreciate the guidance; it looks like the article is already in compliance. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

   Mine protectors (Ми́нный защи́тник) were a pre-WWI device adopted by the Soviets to break wires of minesweepers during a contact sweep to prevent displacement of moored contact mines. Kges1901 (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

   I've added a link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

   Very helpful, thank you! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 23:40, 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. It appears that the sources "Rohwer (2005)" and "Platonov (2002)" are never cited in the article, so they don't need to be included in the source list, unless I'm missing something. Earwig's tool doesn't reveal any copyvio issues with online sources. AGF for the offline sources, the article appears to be well supported.

   Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

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.

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) 02:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)