Talk:Soviet destroyer Storozhevoy

Soviet destroyer Storozhevoy 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: January 20, 2019. (Reviewed version).

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

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 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.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 15:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a look. —Ed!^(talk) 15:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

It is reasonably well written:
Pass External links, dup links and dab links look good. Copyvio detector returns green.
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass Offline references accepted in good faith. Cursory check of Google Books shows references that back up source material here.
It is broad in its coverage:
- Suggested in the design that the ship's role be included, would think that it would be best in the design article but that at least the lead ship could have some special explanation as it's the one setting the precedent.

All ship's roles are usually covered by the link to the ship type.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Was it ever made clear why this ship specifically was able to reach the highest speeds of its sisters? Would be interesting but perhaps might also be the kind of detail best reserved for the ship class article.

Sadly not covered in our sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- "To lay additional mines in the latter, " -- confused by this phrase, it reads as though you were listing two locations in the previous sentence but only Irbe Strait is mentioned.

Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Are there any statistics on amount of ordinance expended in Leningrad?

Lemme check another source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing in which we've been let down by our sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- When she was assigned to the 4th Fleet, any word on where she was assigned, and if possible what the general missions and tasks this fleet was undertaking at the time?

Post-war information on these ships is annoyingly skimpy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Any idea where she was based while a training ship?

See above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass No problems there.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass Image tagged PD as appropriate.
Other:
Overall I have left a few comments for improvements on the article. But I note that none is large enough to hold it or indicates that it is deficient of the GA criteria. This along with the relatively short size of the article and lack of availability of records that is common with this area of history leads me to think there's no reason to hold it up based on them along. So, going to Pass the GAN. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]