Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Soviet cruiser Admiral Isachenkov

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 promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Soviet cruiser Admiral Isachenkov

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Simongraham (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the standard, particularly in the light of the excellent work by Kges1901 (talk · contribs) on Marshal Voroshilov a few years ago. simongraham (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

Looks fine to me. One quibble:

"Electronics warfare" should be "Electronic warfare"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. This is now fixed. simongraham (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

"Large Anti-submarine Ship". Why the upper case initial letters?

It is what BPK translates as in English.

The MoS states " Wikipedia does not capitalize something unless it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources." Is that the case here?

The sources differ. Although Cullen's Encyclopedia of World Sea Power does, Polman's Guide to the Soviet Navy does not. I feel there is no consensus either way so have amended the article accordingly.

What was "Okean-75"?

An open-ocean naval exercise in 1975. Clarified.

"two quadruple URPK-3 launchers for eight 85R anti-submarine missiles". Could these be reloaded?

The sources do not say.

"The Ka-25 helicopter embarked on the ship was also capable of aiding in the search and destruction of submarines." Is it known what equipment and weapons the helicopter carried to this end?

Added with source.

"Four 30 mm (1.2 in) AK-630 close-in weapon systems." This is not a sentence.

Corrected.

Link radome.

Added.

Cite 1 has a p/pp error.

Fixed.

"The flag was raised". What does this signify?

The source does not say.

If it does not communicate anything meaningful to a reader, why is it in the article?

Good point. I have found out that this is equivalent to commissioning and so I have changed it to the more common term ("raising the flag" is translated from Russian). I have done the same to the lowering the flag/decommissioning later on.

"The ship then continued to serve in the North Atlantic". Which ship?

Clarified.

"upgraded with URPK-5 Rastrub (SS-N-14B) missiles." Were these additions, or did they replace any of the pre-existing weapons systems?

Clarified.

That's all from me. Nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you. That is very kind. I think I have made the changes you recommend. simongraham (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor come backs above.

These are excellent points. Please tell me if there anything else. simongraham (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the addition of a straight-forward section on context this looks close to FA standard to my untutored eye. I am not an expert on modern-warship articles (anything pre-1850 is more my area) so it may be worth running this past an editor who is (User:Kges1901 or User:Sturmvogel 66 possibly) and/or PR and then considering nominating it for FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is very kind. simongraham (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

Ping me if I haven't gotten to this by Tuesday. Hog Farm _Talk 15:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, due to an accumulation of a number of factors in real life it looks like I'm going to be only marginally active for much of November, so I don't think I'm going to be able to get to this. Hog Farm _Talk 03:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I am sorry to hear that, but can completely empathise. I hope all is OK. simongraham (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things have cleared up for me; I should be able to get to this later this week. Hog Farm _Talk 16:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" Total power was 91,000 kilowatts (122,033 hp)" - but this is contradicted by the infobox, which gives the shaft horsepower as 91,000 and the kilowatts as 68,000
- The infobox is correct according to the source. Body updated.
Maybe I'm misreading things, but it looks like the body is saying it had 48 Shtorm missiles, but the infobox says 72?
- The source states 48. Infobox updated.
"The ship was commissioned on 7 July 1974" - infobox gives 5 November 1974 as the commissioning date?
- The source states 7 July 1974 as the the date of completion rather than commissioned. Updated.
"met the newly commissioned Project 1134B Berkut B (NATO reporting name 'Kara' class) ship Kerch which then took on the escort role" - maybe double-check the source to make sure "newly-commissioned" is accurate? Both our article on Kerch and on the ship class (which could well be wrong) state that Kerch was commissioned in 1974, three years before the event being described
- Removed.
"Returning to the Mediterranean, the vessel then undertook manoeuvres with Kiev and the Project 1123 Kondor (NATO reporting name 'Moskva' class) helicopter cruiser Leningrad between 4 January and 18 September 1981" - source doesn't seem to support these exact dates of maneuver
- Source added.
The decommissioning date is a bit contradictory - the infobox uses 3 July 1992, which is the date that it was removed from active service, while the body says the exact decommissioning happened on 23 September 1992
- You are right. The sources talk about the ship being struck. Clarified.

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm _Talk 01:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for another rigorous review. I believe the changes have been made. simongraham (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pendright

@Simongraham: I could start a review in a day or two, but I would first like to know whether the article is written using American or British English. Pendright (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Unfortunatly,Waiting for your reply has comsumed the time that I had available to do a review. Pendright (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: My apologies. RL meant I have not been on wikipedia for some days. The page was originally written in British English but may have been subsequently changed by other editors. simongraham (talk) 19:41, 28

November 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Does ths need another general review for promotion? Pendright (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pendright, good spot. No, it looks good to go to me. It was listed for closure yesterday and I have just promoted it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Contrary to what I've been believing for the last 15 years, the various volumes of Conway have chapters written by various authors and need to reflect that in the citation. You can get that info on the page across from the Contents. And Gardiner is the editorial director, not an editor, IMO.
- Thank you. I get the impression that there a lot of pages that will need updating.
Berezhnoy needs a place of publication.
- Added.
Pavlov's been translated into English if you struggle with Russian like I do.
- That is interesting. I will seek it out.
The sources are known to me to be highly reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for this review. I have updated the reference for Conway's and updated the other biographical information. simongraham (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.