Talk:Kiev-class destroyer

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kiev-class destroyer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Saskoiler (talk · contribs) 19:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to take on a GA review of this article. I will assess one criterion at a time, capturing the assessment in the table which follows. Below the table, I'll list items which I believe need attention, if any. I will let you know (below) when I have completed the initial review. Saskoiler (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Overall, the prose is excellent. It reads easily and is clear. I have made a small number of grammar/spelling tweaks. Please feel free to confirm. Otherwise, I think this criteria passes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: This single paragraph provides a fairly good summary of the topic which hits on the most important points (introduce the topic, only three started construction, historical connections prompting the planning/construction of Kiev-class vessels as well as the eventual cancellation). I have a few suggestions to consider (see "Lead" below). Layout: Layout guidelines are being followed. The article sections are appropriate. There's a comprehensive infobox along with two complementary templates, and the article is categorized appropriately. One of the templates needs to be fixed to be consistent with the article body. (see "Layout" below). Words to Watch: No problematic words which indicate bias or other problems. Fiction: n/a List incorporation: Bulleted lists are used appropriately in the reference sections. A list of ships is presented in tabular form. All ok. Update: All issues related to Lead and Layout have now been addressed. This criteria passes.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There are four sources listed in a Bibliography section, with total of 11 citations in a Citations section. Format of these is (more than) acceptable for GA.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All four sources appear reliable. Two are in Russian; the other two are in English. I located most of the pages in 3 of the sources, and with the help of Google Translate, I was able to verify the statements supported by citations: 1 (mostly), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. I could not verify 10 or 11, but trust these. I have a couple questions about statements made in the article. (see "Verifiable" below this table) Update: All issues related to verifiability have now been addressed. This criteria passes.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I do not see any evidence of original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I do not see any evidence of copyright violations nor plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main aspects of this topic (design, description, armament, ships, historical context) are addressed in reasonable detail. One aspect commonly covered by similar ship-class articles -- Service -- is omitted; given that none of the Kiev-class destroyers saw combat service, this is reasonable.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The focus of this article is very good, and there are no unnecessary tangents.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This article is written in a neutral manner, showing no bias (positive, negative, or other) toward the topic.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This article is stable. There hasn't been a significant edit for nearly two weeks. Prior to that, nearly every edit was made by the GA nominator.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	There are two images; both are tagged with copyright status. The first has a fair use rationale that seems reasonable; the second is a free image (GNU license).
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Both images are relevant and add value to this article. The first is a sketch of the ship's (design) profile. The second is a photograph of a turret from a different ship which matches the turret designed for the Kiev-class destroyers.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a fine article, and I believe it passes most of the GA criteria in my initial review. I have listed a few items to address below. Once those are resolved, I will pass this review. Update: All issues raised in the comments below have been addressed, so this review is passed.

Items to Address

The following is a list of items which may need attention. Please respond individually to each to (a) let me know that it has been resolved OR (b) explain why it should not be changed.

Verifiable

• Article states that the Kiev(357) and Erevan(358) were "cancelled all further development in 1949". Platanov 2003 is cited as the source for this (which I don't have access to). However, Rohwer & Monakov (p 232) states that "Kiev and Erevan ... cancelled in 1950." Small detail, but does the other source have a conflicting date of 1949? Or is 1949 just a typo?
  • Good catch.
• There are two notes (in the Notes section) which state that the Ochakov and Perekop are unconfirmed names. Rohwer & Manakov (p 232) confirms this. However, the same page in that source also says (with identical prose) that both Arkhangelsk and Murmansk were also unconfirmed names. For consistency, I think we ought to add two more notes (or reword a single, longer note).
  • Agreed.
• I'm confused about which other ships seem to have played a role in the cancellation of most of the Kiev-class destroyers.
  • The article states "A contributing factor may have been the Project 35 large-destroyer design scheduled for 1941...".
  • This appears to agree with the cited source (Platonov 2002, p 144) which states (via Google Translate) "Appearance of pr. 35 destroyers with universal the main-caliber artillery, the serial construction of which was planned with 1941, finally put an end to pr. 48."
  • However, according to List of ships of Russia by project number, Project 35 corresponds to Mirka-class frigate.
  • This seems like a contradiction to me because frigates aren't destroyers. Am I missing some domain knowledge here? Or is this a mistake? Instead of Project 35, could it be the contemporaneous Project 30 Ognevoy-class destroyer instead? Or another one?
    • The Project 35 destroyer design seems to have been abandoned with Operation Barbarossa. The Mirkas reused the Project number for some reason.
  • The lead for the parallel Russian Wikipedia article for the Kiev-class destroyers says they were discontinued in favor of the Project 47 destroyer leaders. But then the body of that article says it was Project 35 destroyers. Russian Wikipedia has articles for both Project 35 destroyers and Project 35 patrol ships. Maybe the error is simply on the English List of ships of Russia by project number not being comprehensive enough to mention both the destroyers and patrol ships?
    • What I should really do is add an entry for the cancelled destroyer design.
• There is confusion over (a) how many ships were eventually planned (14? 15?), and (b) in which phases (12-then-3? Or 11-then-4? Or 12-then-2?). I'm honestly not sure which is correct, but the article itself isn't self-consistent, so something needs to be adjusted.
  • The infobox in the article states that 14 were planned.
  • Article body states that 15 was the number of ships eventually decided (half of the proposed 30), with "twelve in the first part of the five-year plan and three in the later part."
  • Rohwer & Monakov (p 99) also says the number is 15, but with "Eleven were to be built in the first part of the programme, four in the second". So, is it 12-then-3, or is it 11-then-4?
  • The Rohwer & Monakov table on page 232 lists 14 ships (only 12 of which are listed in the article's table of ships), further muddying the water.
  • I think we can make the article self-consistent by changing the body text to state that 14 were planned, 12 in the first phase, and two in the second. Then, the article's table could be amended to add the two unknown ships targeted for the fourth FYP, even though these last two ships were never assigned a builder (and then cancelled on 19 October 1940). Does that sound reasonable?
    • I've compromised and added that the remaining ships were intended to be ordered as part of the 4th Five-Year Plan, without specifying exactly how many that was, and have added a note below the table discussing the contradiction.

Lead

I like most of the lead, but feel it could be improved by:

• Making it clear why the Kiev-class was cancelled.
  • The lead makes a direct connection to the initiation of the Kiev-class (i.e. the cancellation of Tashkent-class ships), but only makes a vague connection to what cancelled the Kiev-class. Since this class of ships was planned but never realized (3 partial ships... none made it to battle), I think the reason for the cancellation is one of the most important points and deserves to be addressed in the lead. Although there is ambiguity about which other Project's ships were involved (see earlier point about Project 35) in the decision, the referenced source does strongly indicate that the Kiev-class ships were overtaken by history (i.e. they were deemed archaic).

• Avoiding the use of the term "laid down".
  • In order to make the lead as accessible as possible to the widest audience possible, I think the term "laid down" should be removed from the lead (but retained in the body). I'm a novice in this domain, and when I first read this article, that was the only term that I didn't understand. I appreciate that the term is wiki-linked (which I followed to learn what it means), but I still think it would be better to avoid it in the lead. I think it could be easily reworded to something like "Although more were planned, construction was initiated on only three ships; one was cancelled and scrapped..."
  • Then, the first use of "laid down" in the body text can be wiki-linked instead.

• Adjusting the phrase "... before the Germans invaded in mid-1941..." to "... before the Axis invasion in mid-1941 ..."
  • This would be more consistent with the phrase " ... in light of the Axis invasion..." later in the body and, I think, a bit more accurate.

• Considering removal of "Operation Barbarosa" from the lead.
  • I would like this for historical context in the body text, but I'm not convinced it belongs in the lead. At best, it seems like a distracting detail that isn't central to the main story of the Kiev-class. At worst, it might mislead a casual reader to (wrongly) conclude that Kiev-class ships were actually present during Operation Barbarosa.
  • Recommend it be struck from the lead, but moved to the body text for context.

Layout

• One of the two templates -- Template:Kiev-class_destroyer -- is not consistent with the article.
  • The template lists four ships as being laid down, while the article says only three. (Stalinabad, Perekop, and Ochakov appear to be misplaced). Recommend making them consistent.
  • The template has spelling differences compared with the article (table): Yerevan vs Erevan (the former is also used in the paragraph prose); Arkangelsk vs Arkhangelsk. Recommend adopting a consistent spelling throughout.
  • The template mentions only 10 ships, while the article (table) details 12 ships, with the two unnamed ships being the difference. I'm not sure what the convention is in other military articles, but I would be inclined to either list the unnamed ships ("Unnamed 1", and "Unnamed 2") or add a collective phrase such as "and two unnamed ships" to the template.
  • The template leaves the "Followed by:" item blank, while the infobox provides "None" as in "Succeeded by: None". Recommend these be made consistent.
    • FYI, you needn't review the template; it's not actually part of the article, but your comments were welcome as I should have updated it to be consistent with the article.

Potential Article Enhancements (beyond GA criteria)

Here I will list some ideas for enhancing the article further, even though these go beyond GA criteria. It is NOT necessary to address these at this time, and choosing to do so (or not) will not influence the result of this review. I simply list these ideas to inspire future improvements.

• There are two images on the parallel Russian Wikipedia article which might be used to further enhance this English article.
  • Neither of those are properly licensed.
• In addition, the Russian Wikipedia article (which has achieved Featured Article status) has quite a bit more depth on several sub-topics which could inspire future growth of this article. In particular, I found the details about how the two partially-completed vessels were used as targets and the comparative analysis between the Kiev-class and contemporaneous classes from other nations quite interesting.
  • I do need to translate Kachur and add the information on their careers as targets.

General discussion

@Sturmvogel 66: I have completed my initial GA review, with only a small number of items to address pertaining to (1) verifiability, (2) the lead, and (3) one of the templates. It's a high-quality article, and I will be happy to pass this GA review once these items are addressed. -- Saskoiler (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your most thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: I accept your changes, and I am passing this GA review. Thank you for your contributions to this article, and for your many(!) contributions to good articles and good article reviews. You are truly an inspiration. Saskoiler (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)