Talk:Soviet destroyer Smely (1939)

Soviet destroyer Smely (1939) 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 13, 2019. (Reviewed version).

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

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

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: Military 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.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force.

GA Review

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soviet destroyer Smely (1939)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 01:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Looking at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 01:21, 13 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 One one note: Sentence beginning with "20" should have numeral spelled out. Preferred for consistency that numerals over 10 be presented ("fifteen minutes") but this is sufficiently stringent for GA criteria.
- Dab links, dup links, external links tools all show no problems. Copyvio tool shows green.
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass Offline sources accepted in good faith. A cursory check of the source material on Google in English sources backs up material cites in the article.
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass Appropriate context included from ship class article; additional detail really only has a place there for consistency.
- Would prefer to have a unit cost, but records on this subject aren't common in the source material as I understand it.
- Article doesn't explicitly state it, but looking at the source material online the lack of fatalities in the sinking would be notable to include if possible.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass Sufficient mix of third-party sources in both Russian language and other contemporaries.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass One image included under public domain tag where appropriate.
Other:
Pass A few relatively minor suggestions, though given the short history of the subject material as well as the comprehensive nature of relevant context, I don't see a need to place the article on hold for these to be fixed. So, passing the article for GA. —Ed!^(talk) 05:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic