Talk:Kiev-class destroyer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Saskoiler (talk · contribs) 19:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to take on a GA review of this article. I will assess one criterion at a time, capturing the assessment in the table which follows. Below the table, I'll list items which I believe need attention, if any. I will let you know (below) when I have completed the initial review. Saskoiler (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

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.
	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.	There are four sources listed in a Bibliography section, with total of 11 citations in a Citations section. Format of these is (more than) acceptable for GA.
	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).	All four sources appear reliable. Two are in Russian; the other two are in English. I located most of the pages in 3 of the sources, and with the help of Google Translate, I was able to verify the statements supported by citations: 1 (mostly), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. I could not verify 10 or 11, but trust these. I have a couple questions about statements made in the article. (see "Verifiable" below this table)
	2c. it contains no original research.	I do not see any evidence of original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I do not see any evidence of copyright violations nor plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main aspects of this topic (design, description, armament, ships, historical context) are addressed in reasonable detail. One aspect commonly covered by similar ship-class articles -- Service -- is omitted; given that none of the Kiev-class destroyers saw combat service, this is reasonable.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The focus of this article is very good, and there are no unnecessary tangents.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This article is written in a neutral manner, showing no bias (positive, negative, or other) toward the topic.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This article is stable. There hasn't been a significant edit for nearly two weeks. Prior to that, nearly every edit was made by the GA nominator.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Items to Address

The following is a list of items which may need attention. Please respond individually to each to (a) let me know that it has been resolved OR (b) explain why it should not be changed.

Verifiable

• Article states that the Kiev(357) and Erevan(358) were "cancelled all further development in 1949". Platanov 2003 is cited as the source for this (which I don't have access to). However, Rohwer & Monakov (p 232) states that "Kiev and Erevan ... cancelled in 1950." Small detail, but does the other source have a conflicting date of 1949? Or is 1949 just a typo?

• There are two notes (in the Notes section) which state that the Ochakov and Perekop are unconfirmed names. Rohwer & Manakov (p 232) confirms this. However, the same page in that source also says (with identical prose) that both Arkhangelsk and Murmansk were also unconfirmed names. For consistency, I think we ought to add two more notes (or reword a single, longer note).

• There is confusion over (a) how many ships were eventually planned (14? 15?), and (b) in which phases (12-then-3? Or 11-then-4? Or 12-then-2?). I'm honestly not sure which is correct, but the article itself isn't self-consistent, so something needs to be adjusted.
  • The infobox in the article states that 14 were planned.
  • Article body states that 15 was the number of ships eventually decided (half of the proposed 30), with "twelve in the first part of the five-year plan and three in the later part."
  • Rohwer & Monakov (p 99) also says the number is 15, but with "Eleven were to be built in the first part of the programme, four in the second". So, is it 12-then-3, or is it 11-then-4?
  • The Rohwer & Monakov table on page 232 lists 14 ships (only 12 of which are listed in the article's table of ships), further muddying the water.
  • I think we can make the article self-consistent by changing the body text to state that 14 were planned, 12 in the first phase, and two in the second. Then, the article's table could be amended to add the two unknown ships targeted for the fourth FYP, even though these last two ships were never assigned a builder (and then cancelled on 19 October 1940). Does that sound reasonable?

Saskoiler (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)