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

Reviewer: Zawed ( talk · contribs) 06:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I will take a look at this one. Zawed ( talk) 06:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC) GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) reply

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Due to the inexperience...: this sentence doesn't phrase quite right, seems to be it should be split into two and/or is missing some content.

   I struggled with this one a lot; see if my reworking of it reads well

   Yep, that change looks good. Zawed ( talk) 03:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC) reply

   pair of Tsarist-era 60-caliber 102-millimeter (4 in) Pattern 1911 guns, one mount forward and aft of the superstructure.: Should that be "pair of Tsarist-era 60-caliber 102-millimeter (4 in) Pattern 1911 guns, mounted forward and aft of the superstructure respectively" or similar?

   b. ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Dupe links: abaft, sonar

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. ( reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. ( OR):

   All sources are print and the preview function on Google Books wasn't able to bring up any relevant pages that I could check. I could see that Hill ref had a chapter on the Uragan class vessels. However, given history of nominator, I have no concerns with the sources.

   d. ( copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig tool shows 4.8% similarity, but this is because of the titles of the sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. ( major aspects):

   The ship was one of eight of Series I ships known officially as Project 2, but they were nicknamed the "Bad Weather Flotilla" by Soviet sailors by virtue of their meteorological names.: this statement in the lead is not explicitly covered off in the body of the article.

   I made a tweak to the lead and article body as the mention of "eight" and "Project 2" still wasn't explicitly mentioned in article body. The latter came from the Uragan-class article which has the same cite. Zawed ( talk) 04:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC) reply

   Infobox and article body inconsistent regarding launch date.

   Does the translation of the ship name need a cite?

   Not controversial, etc., so I don't think so.

   b. ( focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Trying out the template for this review, see comments embedded above. Cheers, Zawed ( talk) 10:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

See if my changes are satisfactory.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Rather than make further comments and delaying what I am sure would have been a pass for GA, I made a couple of additional tweaks that I felt were necessary. I consider this article meets the necessary GA criteria now. Cheers, Zawed ( talk) 04:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC) reply