Talk:Soviet submarine K-222/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Sorry for the delay! It's been ... snowy... here in the northwoods...

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • "K-222 was the only ship of the Project 661 Anchar class (NATO reporting name: Papa) was a Soviet Navy nuclear-powered cruise-missile submarine built during the Cold War." you have two verbs here - the basics of the sentence (without subordinate clauses, etc) is "K-222 was the only ship was a submarine." Needs fixing.
  • The lead feels a bit skimpy - perhaps a bit more from the background section and some of the major stats?
• Description:
  • Link for "design depth"?
  • Do we have a breakdown of the number of officers/non-commissioned officers/enlisted or just a lump sum?
    • Sadly no detailed breakdown
  • "The submarine had an endurance of 70 days." link or explanation for "endurance"?
• Armament:
  • "between the inner and outer hulls outboard of the three forward compartments" this is jargony - can we link/explain "outboard of the three forward compartments" a bit better?
    • See if my rephrasing works for you.
• Construction:
  • "Sevmash" we have a link, but a quickie explanation would be good here to avoid losing the reader to another article
    • Rephrased to inform the reader that it was the shipyard.
  • "revealed that 10 ballast tanks were not watertight" were these all of the tanks or some of them? if only some, what percentage? (And shouldn't the number of ballast tanks be mentioned in description?)
    • Ideally, but that level of data is generally lacking for Soviet submarines, even if post-Cold War sources.
  • "with the reactors and nuclear fuel still on board" ... one hesitates to ask but... what happened to the reactor/fuel???? (I really hope they didn't just ship it to a trash dump!)
    • Russians left many of their nuclear subs to simply rust away, waiting for Western cash to defuel them and reprocess the fuel. The whole thing is kinda fascinating, in a rather horrifying way.
• I did a bit of light copyediting - please make sure I did not inadvertently change meaning.
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
• Spotchecks:
  • "and this was completed by 4 June" is sourced to this source which supports the information
  • "this was the weakest torpedo armament ever fitted in a Soviet nuclear submarine" is sourced to Polmar & Moore, p. 138 which is a bit close in phrasing to the source - the source has "This would be the smallest number of torpedo tubes fitted in a Soviet nuclear submarine."
    • I couldn't think of a good alternative wording so I just deleted it as it was really only marginally interesting.
  • "By July 1959 a sketch design was ready for a submarine capable of 38 knots (70 km/h; 44 mph) and the State Committee for Shipbuilding had to make decisions about what the submarine's hull would be constructed of and what type of nuclear reactor would be used." is sourced to Polmar & Moore, pp. 136–137 which supports the information
  • "It was much stronger than steel for a given weight, resisted corrosion better and was non-magnetic." is sourced to [ Polmar & Moore, p. 137] which supports the information.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've dealt with all of your comments, hopefully in a satisfactory manner. Lemme know what you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)