Talk:Soviet destroyer Strogy (1939)

Soviet destroyer Strogy (1939) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 15, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Military history: Maritime / Russian & Soviet / World War II / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Soviet Union: Military Low‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soviet destroyer Strogy (1939)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 03:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look. —Ed!^(talk) 03:00, 14 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:
Dup links, dab links and external links tools all show no problems. Copyvio tool returns green.
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass Offline references accepted in good faith. Cursory check of Google Books shows references that back up source material here.
It is broad in its coverage:
Not Yet
- "Strogy and several of her sisters were rebuilt as Project 32 rescue and decontamination ships" -- Might be worth it to mention which ones were converted. Was there ever a purpose-built class for this purpose?

Seems a little out of bounds for a ship article and better discussed in the class article. Not to my knowledge.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- "she received two direct hits from an artillery battery on 26 November, killing one and wounding two sailors." -- Any indication of ship damage as well?

Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- "expended 1167 and 979 130 mm shells in 1942 and 1943, respectively. ... She expended a total of 4,669 shells..." -- consistency needed in the article as to commas or none in larger figures.

Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Modifications indicates believed obsolescence but might be good to add in Postwar service where it can be chronological. If possible, might be good to indicate what advances/classes supplanted this one.

By this time the Soviets had built 10 Ognevoy-class and 70 Skory-class DDs, so it seems pretty obvious, but my sources do not specifically say why they thought the Type 7Us were obsolete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass Multiple references given an appropriate balance between them.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass One image tagged PD where appropriate.
Other:
On Hold Pending a few minor things. —Ed!^(talk) 03:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pass Thanks as always! —Ed!^(talk) 00:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]