Talk:Osvetnik-class submarine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 20:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, since I'm familiar with the subject matter after reviewing two of the submarines of the Osvetnik class, I will be reviewing this article as well within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Peacemaker67, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article, and I find that it meets all the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have some comments and questions that should first be addressed below. Thank you tremendously for all your hard work on this article and others! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the Osvetnik submarine class, establishes the submarine class' necessary context, and explains why this submarine class is otherwise notable.
• The info box for the submarine class is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the referenced cited therein.
• As I stated in the articles for the two Osvetnik class submarines, is there no free image of an Osvetnik class submarine for the info box? This is not a deal breaker for GA, but it would certainly add to the article's aesthetics.
• Could one more sentence be added to the lede regarding the distinguishing design features of the Osvetnik class submarines?
• The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Description and construction

• I suggest starting out the first paragraph of this section by explicitly naming the Osvetnik class.
• While this is a separate matter from this article and its GA qualifications, are there plans in the works to craft an article on the Simonot design?
• Should Maschinenfabrik be spelled out either in parentheses after "MAN" or with "MAN" in parentheses after Maschinenfabrik?
• The section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Service history

• I suggest adding a comma after "On 14 September 1943."
• On 10 April, Osvetnik and Hrabri received orders for an operation, but operation did not proceed. Is this because they were subsequently captured by the Italian XVII Corps? If so, this should be made explicit in the prose.
• There should be a wiki-link to Scuttling in the prose for those readers not familiar with this act of deliberately sinking a ship.
• The section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Thanks for your thorough reviews of all three articles, West Virginian! I have addressed all your comments, but as I've also noted on the individual submarine article reviews, I am yet to locate a PD image for the class. As my interests lie with Yugoslavia, I am unlikely to work up a Simonot article, but never say never... My edits are here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, thank you for your timely response to my above comments regarding this article. Upon my re-review, I find that you've adequately addressed my concerns and it is hereby my pleasure to pass this article to Good Article status! Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)