Talk:Soviet destroyer Gnevny (1936)

Soviet destroyer Gnevny (1936) 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: December 20, 2018. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soviet destroyer Gnevny (1936) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	World War II task force

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[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soviet destroyer Gnevny (1936)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaptainEek (talk · contribs) 23:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Issues taken care of
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's CopyVio came back clean, see no other evidence of violations/plagiarism (although I do note that the "D&D" section is almost verbatim from Gnevny-class destroyer, not sure if attribution was provided in edit sums...?)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Photo is in public domain
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Although I would wish for an actual picture of the Gnevny it seems that no actual pictures of it survive or are available. Nominators, can you confirm?
	7. Overall assessment.	Nicely done!

Things to fix:

3A/1B: Lead mentions that after hitting the mine her survivors were taken on by sister ships, but the "service" section doesn't really mention it, saying only "after being abandoned". If possible, discuss which ships took on survivors or at least mention that survivors were taken on in the "service" section Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 23:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The accompanying ships were Maxim Gorky and her sisters Gordy and Steregushchy as mentioned earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have made this more detailed. Kges1901 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, thanks. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 1A: Clear & Concise: The first paragraph in the "Design & description" section feels like its the second half of a clause, i.e. some context is missing. "Having decided on"? Decided on after what? What was decided on for the Leningrad class destroyers? Without context it lacks clarity. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 00:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better for sure Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 1A: In P1 of "D&D" it says "Overloaded"? Does that mean too top heavy? Too much weight? Does the source even specify? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 00:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to address the last comment. There are no public domain pictures available. Kges1901 (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good, taken care of. And as I suspected, so be it. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only issue left to solve: cleanup the "which" inline template Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the source is not detailed enough to state which destroyers did not meet the design speed. Kges1901 (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It only give speed and range data for 8-10 of the ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So then is there actually enough info for us to make the claim that some ships didn't perform as well? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 03:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why it's written that way. That whole paragraph will be used for those ships for which no detailed data is available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thats fair. In that case...see below! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats folks! This article has passed GA! I will be updating the talkpage shortly to reflect that. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]