Talk:Soviet frigate Pytlivyy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 03:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll dibs this. As a habitual procrastinator, I usually get around to GA reviews within a week. If I let it get past that, please ping me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go! Overall a well-written article, with a good balance of technical detail and background explanation. Despite my ignorance of the subject matter, I found it readable and understandable.

Criteria 1: Prose looks good in general, with a couple of issues before I fully sign off. I also made a few minor tweaks.

In the lead, it might be better to identify the latter two names as alternate transliterations. Something like "Pytlivyy (also transliterated Pytlivy or Pytliviy; Russian text here)".
- No problem. That is done.
You may want to expand abbreviations like COGAG and ESM in the text; not everyone will know what those are offhand and it is distracting as a reader to have to click through to see what they are.
- I have added an expansion to ESM but COGAG really needs the explanation if it is a term that is not known. The article also explains the different
  - I think you forgot to finish your thought here :) In any case fair enough, I don't disagree strongly enough to hold up the GA
What is "shake-down"?
- Wikilink added.
"missions to foreign missions" is that correct?
- Corrected.
The sentence that starts "On 2 December" is a little bit awkward/redundant. "was to be found" isn't really necessary. I could reword it but I don't want to cramp your style.
- I have rewritten this.
This is a nitpick but what does detachment mean in the context of "the detachment band"?
- Clarified.
The sentence starting "The following decade..." is also a little awkward and might be more clear if split up. My suggested rewrite would be "By 2001, Pytlivyy was one of the few Project 1135M ships still in service.[20] Over the following years, the vessel was involved in several joint operations with other navies."
- Done.
"The inclusion of a Russian vessel in a NATO operation..." I understand you're limited to what's in the sources, but is there any way to expand on this, because as a reader I'd be curious to know more about the controversy and whether it led directly to the brevity.
- I have expanded this.
  - Perfect, that makes it a little more informative.

Criteria 2: I don't see any issues with the sources, although I'm taking the Russian ones on good faith since I don't read a lick of it. Everything in the article is appropriately cited. As a side note, the Polmar source is listed in the bibliography but isn't cited anywhere, so it should be either cited or removed.

Updated.

Criteria 3: Coverage is complete and focused. The ship's career appears fairly humdrum so I'm guessing there's not much to say in the first place. I'd like to see expansion on the NATO controversy if there's sourcing for it, but I understand if there isn't.

Expanded.

Criteria 4: No issues with neutrality.

Criteria 5: Article is stable.

Criteria 6: Infobox image is clear and representative, US military work so PD. More images exist on Commons, and there is room to include them (File:Krivak II class frigate, aerial port view.jpg in particular is an interesting aerial view), but it's an editorial decision that I wouldn't hold up GA over.

Added

Simongraham, sorry for the delay, here's the review. Let me know your thoughts on my comments - I'm willing to discuss or be flexible depending on the comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Thank you for such a thorough review. Please take a look at my amendments. simongraham (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi simongraham, thanks for the quick responses. All of my concerns/suggestions have been addressed, so I have no hesitation in passing this as a GA. Congratulations! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]