Jump to content

Talk:Russian submarine Sankt Peterburg/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 14:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this review. --Noleander (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • It would be great if there were a footer navBox listing all/most Russian/USSR subs. Does such a navbox exist?
  • There's a navbox that has all the sub classes of the Soviets and the Russians, but it's only used on sub class articles, not on individual sub articles.
  • Infobox: Complement 35 ... missing citation.
  • Infobox: Status: in active service, ... probably should be capital "In ..."
  • Lead wording :" ...were detrimentally inefficient. " Probably better to say " ...did not meet specifications" or " were inadequate" or similar.
  • I believe that the Russian navy/subs are in a bit of disarray now (at least that is what I've read). Perhaps this article could include a sentence or two giving an overview of the state of the Russian sub service in the 1994 -> today era. How is it relative to the USSR sub service of the 1960s -> 1980s? Have things declined in quality? morale? Just a bit of an overview, to give the reader context.
Done. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Past/present tense: "the main drawback is the .." Most of article is in past tense, but shifts to present in that sentence. Probably best to stay in past tense the entire article, even tho the sub still exists.
  • Location today? - Any idea where the sub is located today? In some port somewhere? A source says it is "in operational service in Baltic fleet" .. is that correct?
  • Infobox pic caption: It would be neat to mention the location of the photo. Is that the city of St. Petersburg in the background?
  • "By 2006, two more of Saint Peterburg's sister boats, Kronshtadt and Sevastopol have had their keels laid down." - The "have had" doesnt read well ... it imlies that we are (now) in the year 2006. Could be "had had", but that is not much better. Maybe "Two sister boats ... had their keels laid down by 2006".

End Comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list

[edit]

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. References to sources:
    B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: