Talk:Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1911)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progression

Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot c Alt text

no dabs found by the tools;
ext links all work according to the tools;
images lack alt text and although it is not a GA requirement (and as such won't be held against the article) you might consider adding it in.

Criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

in the lead I think you need to provide a date for the various mutinies as it is a bit unclear;

Done

the lead seems a little choppy. I think you need to use linking clauses more, for instance: "After this", "This led to...", "Later, in 1921..." etc. ;

How does it read now?

I don't really have a handle on nautical terms etc. so I am not sure if this sentence is correct, but it seems like it needs work: "The central engine room had two each low-pressure ahead and astern turbines as well as two cruising turbines driving the two center shafts." ("each" is the word that stands out for me as possibly being out of place);

A little clearer now?

I think you need to insert the word "was" into this sentence: "She completed with only a single 3-inch (76 mm) 30-caliber Lender anti-aircraft (AA) gun mounted on the quarterdeck" (between She and completed);

Agreed

I think there is a missing word here: "Conway's says that four 75-millimeter (3.0 in) were added to the roofs of the end turrets during the war" (75 millimeter guns?);

Agreed

in the Service section you don't specifically mention that the war it took part in was "World War I" and although I know that it could be assumed I think it should be spelt out clearly. For instance you might consider just adding a clause like this: "She entered service on 5 January 1915, six months after the start of World War I, and was dispatched to Helsingfors. Upon arrival she was assigned to the Firts Battleship Brigade of the Baltic Fleet.";

Nicely phrased.

"The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk required the Soviets to evacuate their base at Helsinki in March 1918 or have them interned by newly-independent Finland even though the Gulf of Finland was still frozen over." ("have them interned" is the issue...use of a pronoun but it is not clear what noun it is replacing);

Fixed

"when they got uncomfortably close to Soviet..." I suggest rewording this as it seems a bit flowery;

Done

was it Trotsky himself that machine-gunned the fort's garrison?

Clarified.

"After it was bloodily crushed she was renamed Marat after..." (repeated use of the word "after, perhaps you could reword?);

I could indeed reword it.

"two days before Operation Barbarossa began..." (I think you need to provide context to this. A reader who doesn't know might not want to click the link to find out what Operation Barbarossa was. You could solve this by saying: "...two days before Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of Soviet Russia, began.";

Done

"The rear part of the ship was refloated and she was used as a floating battery although all of her 120-mm guns were removed." (when did this occur? also I think a linking clause such as "Later, in ..." would make this flow better);

Done

"served as a stationary training ship until stricken on 4 September 1953 and broken up afterwards..." (I think this should be split to: "...served as a stationary training ship until stricken on 4 September 1953. After this, she was subsequently broken up.")

Done

I think you need non breaking spaces between the numbers and units of measure. For instance in the Service section you have "76.2-mm" and "120-mm", but I think these shouldn't have hyphens but should instead have non breaking spaces so that they display in the same was as those in the infobox.

Good catch.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

In the Design section is the bit about the Russians not believing that superfiring turrets offered any advantage covered by Citation # 3? Given that it seems a possibly contestable point it might make sense to include a citation earlier in this paragraph to show that it is clearly verifiable;

It is covered in the given cite, but I don't really see a need to preemptively cite that statement.

That's fine, just needed to clarify. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

are their any details about the incident that led to the British motor boat claiming to have sunk the Petropavlovsk?

My sources cover that incident in great detail. I've added that it was a night attack, which might explain the erroneous claim a bit better. Let me know if more details are needed.

do you know what the ship was doing or where it was during 1916? It currently just says that she saw no action of any kind;

Nothing of note; just training is all I can guess. The Russian BBs rarely left the Gulf of Finland during the war.

"Her sinking is commonly credited to the Stuka pilot Leutnant Hans-Ulrich Rudel of III./StG 2, but one other pilot deserves credit as well." (who was the other pilot that deserves credit? If you don't have this information, I think it needs to be reworded thusly: "Her sinking is commonly credited to the Stuka pilot Leutnant Hans-Ulrich Rudel of III./StG 2, but it is believed that attacks from other pilots also contributed to Marat's fate.");

I don't know the other guy's name, but the simple fact is that it took two bombs to blow off the ship's bow and Rudel only delivered one. Reworded, see how it works.

do you know why Marat returned to its original name on 31 May 1943?

No idea.

No dramas, should be fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

No issues that I could find.

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

Seems fine in this regard.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

File:Petropavlovsk-Helsingfors.jpg: do we know when the author of this passed away? Would it be possible to translate some of the source and date details?

Done, but author is unknown. Changed the Russian tag.

File:Gangut class diagrams Brasseys 1912.jpg: I think this has the wrong licence. Because the author is not stated it could not be determined when they died (hence it is not possible to tell if it was more than 70 years ago). As such I think it should use the PD 1923 tag;

Agreed.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

There are a few things that I feel need to be done to bring this article up to GA status, however, I do not feel that these warrant a quick fail as I believe that they are able to be achieved within a reasonable timeframe. As such I will place it on hold to see what changes are made before deciding upon the outcome. I'm prepared to accept any reasonable explainations of my concerns, and any changes will be taken into consideration, of course. Good work so far.

Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the {{Done}} tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, looks good. Passing now. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]