Talk:Russian monitor Smerch/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox check

No duplicate links in the article (no action required)
Checklinks reports no dead links (no action required)
Copyvio Detector reports no issues with the article (no action required)
No duplicate links found in the article (no action required)

Image check

The image requires US-PD template as indicated in the description at the Commons. Even though the photo is not dated, I assume it is not copyrighted because the photo could not have been taken later than 1904 (at least not with the ship flying the Russian Imperial Navy ensign), and the author of the photo is unknown (Commons specifies this in Russian: Неизвестен)
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image source is given as "Архив фототографий кораблей русского и советского ВМФ" (Archive of photographs of vessels of Russian and Soviet Navy" which refers to a website hosting the photograph. The site itself claims the image is taken from the following book: Первые русские мониторы (сборник статей и документов) [The first Russian monitors (collection of data and documents] by Виктор Галыня (Viktor Galinya) published in Saint Petersburg in 2000, at page 64 ([1]). Personally, I'm not sure if the sourcing info should be amended or expanded accordingly or left as is.
- I don't know either.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's leave it as is then. If and when the change becomes required, the sourcing info shall still be here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image caption is fine (no further action required)

References

Please add ISSN for Warship International. It appears to be 0043-0374 according to this.
- The magazine didn't have an ISSN when it was published.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would OCLC be better suited then?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I don't think that the magazine even has an OCLC entry. Added the ISSN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No other issues (no further action required)

Prose/MOS

The prose specifies the ship propulsion power of 800 indicated horsepower, while the infobox states 700 ihp. I assume one of the two is a typo, but I can't tell which one is it.
- Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In "Smerch had a complete waterline belt of wrought iron that was 4.5 inches (114 mm) thick amidships and thinned to 4 inches (102 mm) at the ends of the ship. seven feet (2 m), it completely covered the hull to 4 feet 6 inches (1 m) below the waterline." I don't understand what does "seven feet (2 m)," refers to or even does to the sentence. Right now it appears (to me) to be a stray copy-paste from somewhere.
- Oops, fixed.
I see that "Smerch (Waterspout)" is fully referenced, however Russian term ru:Смерч means "tornado". A "waterspout" is ru:Водяной смерч in Russian. I did not simply look at the interwiki links for this - my Russian is not brilliant, but I consulted a dictionary to confirm this.
- I ran the word through Google translate and it said that waterspout was one of the meanings of смерч. Looking at the full term for waterspout that you provide, it seems that the literal translation of the full term would be water tornado, or somesuch. Perhaps the shorter form is some sort of colloquialism or has been shortened for the sake of convenience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, don't know. The New Comprehensive Russian-English Dictionary. © Russkiy Yazyk - Media, 2004, D.I. Yermolovich, T.M. Krasavina states this: смерч (на море [on the sea]) waterspout; (на суше[on dry land]) tornado [square bracket translations are mine]. This appears to have at least two interpretations, the sea-related one making more sense as a name of a ship. The Universal English-Russian Dictionary. © ABBYY (compiled from 37 English-Russian dictionaries) translates whirlwind as вихрь; смерч, ураган. The English-Russian Dictionary of Construction and New Constructional Technologies. © Russkiy Yazyk - Media, 2003, V.V. Bykov, A.A. Pozdnyakov translates смерч as whirlwind and completely puzzles me. Is there a word in English which could generally apply to both a waterspout and a tornado? I highly suspect that Russian operates the same as say Croatian (another Slavic language) in this respect - having a single word for both phenomena, both of them being comparatively rare, and the tornado (both in Russian and Croatian) as a term was likely adopted much later on. The Comprehensive Dictionary of the Contemporary Russian Language. © 2006, T.F. Yefremova seems to confirm this saying that a "tornado" is Смерч, проносящийся над сушей (в Северной Америке) [Smerch, moving across dry land (in North America)]. At any rate, while I think the translation of Смерч is not the most fortunate one, I cannot really object to that in the context of a navy vessel, unless there's an English word covering both waterspouts and tornados.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think that there's any such word in English.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I guess the issue is moot (and best left as it is) then.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox contains info that she was laid down on 19 November 1863, but the date is nowhere to be found (or referenced) in the prose. The prose specifies that formal keel-laying was not until 1 December [1863]. Do the two dates refer to the same event (pardon my ignorance here)? If so, which date is correct or should something be added to the prose?
- Fixed the date in the infobox. Start of construction isn't keel-laying; it's generally just cutting and fitting metal together.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. There just a few nitpicks regarding translation of the Russian name, few disagreeing numbers or dates, and similar minor things to mend. Good work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't check on these other issues until I get home early next week.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No rush. It seems only the keel-laying date and indicated horsepowers need a check.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Thanks for your patience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - All clear - passing GAR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]