Talk:Soviet destroyer Gnevny (1936)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CaptainEek (talk · contribs) 23:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Issues taken care of
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's CopyVio came back clean, see no other evidence of violations/plagiarism (although I do note that the "D&D" section is almost verbatim from Gnevny-class destroyer, not sure if attribution was provided in edit sums...?)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Photo is in public domain
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Although I would wish for an actual picture of the Gnevny it seems that no actual pictures of it survive or are available. Nominators, can you confirm?
	7. Overall assessment.	Nicely done!

Things to fix:

3A/1B: Lead mentions that after hitting the mine her survivors were taken on by sister ships, but the "service" section doesn't really mention it, saying only "after being abandoned". If possible, discuss which ships took on survivors or at least mention that survivors were taken on in the "service" section Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 23:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The accompanying ships were Maxim Gorky and her sisters Gordy and Steregushchy as mentioned earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have made this more detailed. Kges1901 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, thanks. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 1A: Clear & Concise: The first paragraph in the "Design & description" section feels like its the second half of a clause, i.e. some context is missing. "Having decided on"? Decided on after what? What was decided on for the Leningrad class destroyers? Without context it lacks clarity. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 00:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better for sure Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 1A: In P1 of "D&D" it says "Overloaded"? Does that mean too top heavy? Too much weight? Does the source even specify? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 00:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to address the last comment. There are no public domain pictures available. Kges1901 (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good, taken care of. And as I suspected, so be it. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only issue left to solve: cleanup the "which" inline template Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the source is not detailed enough to state which destroyers did not meet the design speed. Kges1901 (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It only give speed and range data for 8-10 of the ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So then is there actually enough info for us to make the claim that some ships didn't perform as well? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 03:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why it's written that way. That whole paragraph will be used for those ships for which no detailed data is available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thats fair. In that case...see below! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats folks! This article has passed GA! I will be updating the talkpage shortly to reflect that. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]