Talk:Soviet destroyer Surovy (1940)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 03:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Giving a look. —Ed!^(talk) 03:09, 24 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:

   Pass Dab links, dup links and external links tools all showing no problems. Copyvio tool returns green.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Offline sources accepted in good faith. A cursory search of Google Books shows other sources generally backing up material here.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   • Infobox says she was scuttled, but it seems from both lead and prose that the ship was sunk by the mine and not scuttled in the traditional sense.
   • Commander(s) should be mentioned if in the sources.
   • Could or should be stated, but I assume no casualties during the sinking?
   • Not immediately clear to me; colliding with the minesweeper caused a hole but that hole didn't contribute to the later deforming of the hull? It seemed the collision could have weakened the hull and then the mine's impact was that much worse, if so should be stated. It seems the parvane did its designed job and yet this was the result.
   • Anything on if a wreck was ever discovered? I believe the coordinates are placed on the article in those instances.
   • (No action required) This may be an aside but it does seem some analysis would have been conducted on the class given so many of them fell victim to mines despite some of the countermeasures installed. Something to think about if/when the class article is brought up. If any such research exists, should be interesting to add to the design boilerplate on the ships.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

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

   Pass No problems there. Imaged tagged CC as appropriate.

7. Other:

   Not seeing anything strong enough to hold the article up for GA. Have included some suggestions and ideas for improvement though. Pass for the review. —Ed!^(talk) 03:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)