Talk:Soviet destroyer Smely (1939)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 01:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 01:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

It is reasonably well written:
Pass One one note: Sentence beginning with "20" should have numeral spelled out. Preferred for consistency that numerals over 10 be presented ("fifteen minutes") but this is sufficiently stringent for GA criteria.
- Dab links, dup links, external links tools all show no problems. Copyvio tool shows green.
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass Offline sources accepted in good faith. A cursory check of the source material on Google in English sources backs up material cites in the article.
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass Appropriate context included from ship class article; additional detail really only has a place there for consistency.
- Would prefer to have a unit cost, but records on this subject aren't common in the source material as I understand it.
- Article doesn't explicitly state it, but looking at the source material online the lack of fatalities in the sinking would be notable to include if possible.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass Sufficient mix of third-party sources in both Russian language and other contemporaries.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass One image included under public domain tag where appropriate.
Other:
Pass A few relatively minor suggestions, though given the short history of the subject material as well as the comprehensive nature of relevant context, I don't see a need to place the article on hold for these to be fixed. So, passing the article for GA. —Ed!^(talk) 05:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]