Talk:Russian submarine AG-22

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian submarine AG-22/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 07:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

It's great to see a high quality article on such an obscure vessel - nice work. I have the following comments:

• "AG = Amerikansky Golland" - should this also be translated into English?
  • I've redone that whole bit in conjunction with expanding the background. Might still be kind of rough, let me know.
• "Reassembly was not completed until 1919 by the Whites, in the middle of the Russian Civil War," - little bit unclear: how about 'Her reassembly was completed in 1919 by forces aligned with the White Movement during the the Russian Civil War' or similar?
  • How does it read now.
• "a crew capacity of 30." - was this their crew size, or could they accommodate this many people? (I'm not sure if subs WW1-era subs had extra berths for special forces personnel like they normally do these days)
  • They didn't, that was just be being imprecise.
• "of the second batch ordered by the Imperial Russian Navy" - some extra context is needed here (eg, why were Russian subs being built in Canada, and what was the first batch?)
• Where the subs actually built in Saint John? The current wording is a bit unclear.
  • Is this better explained now?
    • Yes, that works Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Can it be explicitly stated that this sub didn't enter active service? This is strongly implied.
  • My sources aren't clear on her activities in White service. I'm fairly certain that she never made an operational patrol, but the Soviet Navy in the Black Sea, such as it was, was pretty inactive and there may simply have not been any real reason for a patrol. Doesn't mean that she didn't do any training after she was completed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough: there's no reason to expect any detail on this sub's service given the chaotic conditions she was active in. My comments are now all addressed, and I'm pleased to pass this nomination. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of "she" and "her"

Since this article has been approved, I won't edit it myself, but is it really encyclopedic to call a ship "she" and "her"? This was brought up in a different GA review. INeverEmailedPG (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

see WP:SHE4SHIPS Lyndaship (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologize for the other edits. That other GA review was from 2007, so maybe things changed after that. INeverEmailedPG (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No need to apologise - editors are encouraged to be bold and change things when they feel they are wrong. Gender for ships has been debated many times and opinions differ so we have the current guideline which says don't change it unless you are doing a major rewrite of the article. The GA review back in 2007 was one reviewers opinion and if the editor proposing it for GA proceeded that amendment would likely have been declined Lyndaship (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)