Talk:Kirov-class cruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

I did some copyediting, mainly for style and clarity, but please discuss if I have inadvertedly altered the meaning of anything.

Actually I thought that they were nicely done.

I wonder if you could just try and put in your own words most of this quote: "The upper edge of the belt had the same taper as the bottom, the outer surface angling in 200 mm (7.9 in) from the upper edge and losing 30 mm of its thickness. Similarly the deck edge also thinned out, down to about 25 mm for its outermost 200 mm. The deck and belt had no overlap. This seam in the protection, representing a small target area, may simply have served to save weight and simplify construction." While the last sentence may be worth a direct quote since it's speculating, the preceding info is just straight fact and should simply be reworded rather than quoted precisely.

I tried earlier and couldn't come up with an alternative wording that was as concise, so I just quoted the original. I'll take another look.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

There's an anomaly in the table under the Ships section, where you mention Kaganovich, later renamed Petropavlovsk, however elsewhere you say that Kaganovich was renamed Lazar Kaganovich.

I guess I need to explain it better as it was renamed Lazar Kaganovich in the mid to late '40s, and then Petropavlovsk around '57. (All dates from memory)

I don't understand this statement under Pacific Fleet: Even though Lazar Kaganovich and Kalinin were both commissioned before the end of the war, they saw no action during the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945,[13] although Kaganovich wasn't fully complete until 29 January 1947. Are we really saying Kaganovich was commissioned before being completed?

That's what my source says; I guess that there's completed and then there's completed.

Okay, if that's what it says then so be it. I think it'll read better if you put a semi-colon after "1945" and reword the last bit slightly to in any event, Kaganovich was not fully completed until 29 January 1947. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

Images should have alt text.

Done Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how File:Kaganovich cruiser.jpg is public domain under the terms stated in the PD-Russia-2008 tag, given it's dated 1944, but I admit I'm not familiar with Russian PD laws - could you enlighten me? Also, if it proves permissable, I think it would be better to move it to the Service section as that part's lacking in any imagery and where it is now under Ships looks cramped anyway.

I have no idea what the situation is on Russian copyright. I gather that the latest Russian law claims to reassert copyright over material explicitly released into PD by earlier laws, but I don't know for sure. Copyright stuff gives me a headache, legal in one country, but not in another, etc. Do you know anyone knowledgeable on Wiki's handling of Russian copyright? I haven't wanted to inquire because an adverse ruling will force the removal of virtually all Soviet WWII photos from the Commons and I don't want to lose those assets. I guess I can upload it myself as fair-use material if I have to, but I'd just as soon rather not. But I can move it as you suggest! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, tell me about copyright headaches! I'll not soon forget during a recent FAC being informed that an image needed a copyright tag for the US or it would be deleted even though it was marked PD in Australia, then protesting that a similar image in an earlier FAC hadn't caused a problem, and then being told "Oh, good point, missed the previous one, just slapped a deletion tag on it now"...! I see that you did not upload these pics anyway so I'm prepared to let sleeping bears lie... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Very nice article Stormbird, well-detailed and laid out, so if you can respond to these minor points I'll have no trouble passing it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes all look good, if you can just make the latest suggested change re. Kaganovich in the Pacific, we're good to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one last thing: you spell "armour/armor" in both British and US fashion (but the latter more often) - can you make consistent? Since it's a Russian ship, either's fine by me...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, GAR officially passed - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]