Talk:Soviet guard ship Groza/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

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)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 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)
 * 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
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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)
 * 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):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:

Trying out the template for this review, see comments embedded above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)