Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Soviet cruiser Kalinin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Soviet cruiser Kalinin edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Sturmvogel 66 and I bring you this article about a Soviet World War II-era light cruiser, an old GA recently updated with details from Russian sources. As a Pacific Fleet cruiser, Kalinin had an uneventful and relatively brief career. Kges1901 (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

Kalinin (Russian: Калинин) was a Kirov-class cruiser Unlink "Russian" because of common term and merge the "Kirov-class" and "cruiser" links.
Draft vs draught.
derived from the Italian Duca d'Aosta-class light cruisers Pipe Italian to the Kingdom of Italy but try to avoid sea of blue here.
See some British "tonnes" what kind of style should the article use?
"anti-aircraft" is overlinked.

Done

which the Soviets called Drakon-132 Link Soviets.
Link the first "Kirov-class" while the second (and the current) link should be unlinked.
it had been surrounded by the Germans and her propeller shafts Pipe Germans to Nazi Germany.
and six 12.7-millimeter (0.50 in) machine guns Round the "0.50 in" to "0.5 in".
The cruiser joined the Pacific Fleet on 31 December 1942 after completing Remove "1942".

Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day CPA-5 could you look this over and see if all your comments have been addressed? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

This article is in great shape. A few from me:

italicise Kalinin in the first sentence

Done

isn't the Kirov-class the whole of Project 26? Perhaps this needs to be reworded to make it clearer that Kalinin was part of a sub-class of the Kirov-class, if that is right?
- See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"the earlier ships"? Is this a reference to another subclass? Perhaps Project 26bis? If so, is there a link to this earlier class? Or perhaps "the earlier ships of the class". Whichever way, it needs to be better explained.
- How does it work now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
added (AA) after anti-aircraft at first mention
not sure about using the 1945 speed in the infobox, I would have thought that given you're using the sea trials power output then the sea trials speed would be the one to go with?
- I've waffled quite a bit about which ones to use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the conversion of the power output has a rounding issue between the body and infobox
the range uses 18 kn in the body and 17 kn in the infobox
"Unlike her earlier half-sisters" if that is right?
if we are going with "as built", the heavy AA battery in the infobox needs to match the body ie 76.2 mm not 85 mm
not sure if the aircraft-related stuff should be in the infobox if she is "as built"
"officially entered service exactly a month" to avoid needing to give the actual date if that is the aim?

Done

suggest "She was scheduled for departure on 25 June. During May, extensive preparations were made for the voyage at Shipyard No. 202, which included the installation of special propellers with removable blades and the strengthening of her hull to withstand ice pressure."

Done

"and Admiral Nikolai Kuznetsov"

Done

the sources appear to be of high quality and reliable.

That's all I could find, nice job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, PM--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image has an adequate NFUR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this image copyrighted? Soviet photos taken in 1945 should be PD if I recall right, is it the publishing date forcing us to use fair use? Kees08 (Talk) 05:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend to know Russian copyright laws well, but even though the image may have been taken in 1945, the publication is 2003 and we don't have an author to check if they died before 1 January 1945. Is another PD license applicable other than PD-Russia? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, believe I was mistaken. I know that Sputnik images and from then on space race images are coming into PD soon, so I presumed this would as well, but you are right about the publish date. If we could find that it was published around the time it was taken, per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Russia/en#Durations, specifically The work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym between January 1, 1943 and January 1, 1946, and the name of the author did not become known during 70 years after publication. could apply. However, for now nothing to see here, apologies for the interruption. Kees08 (Talk) 06:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to step on your toes, Peacemaker, but there's a problem with the NFUR - the non-free criteria require that the image cannot be replaced, and there are this, this, and this. Even recognition drawings like this or this would invalidate the NFUR, since the claim rests on the premise of needing to illustrate the ship.

On the other hand, any of those can be uploaded for the article (and the other members of the class). Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Later today I intend to replace the image in question with [1] as two of the images linked are Soviet press photos which are also still copyrighted and I think a recognition drawing is inferior for the infobox. Have replaced this with a USN photo. Kges1901 (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, looks like it meets the criteria to me. I have a few minor queries/comments, though: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there are no dab links (no action required)
propeller is overlinked

Done

ASDIC or Asdic?

It is indeed all caps

late deliveries from western factories -- does western here mean British and US, or factories in the western part of the Soviet Union?

Clarified

radar had superseded their primary -- does "their" relate to the aircraft here?

Clarified

Changes look good; I made a minor tweak. Well done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

The sources used are all reliable. I have not carried out any spot checks. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias edit

In the infobox, why does the displacement have standard inside two pair of brackets?

Done

"..had a draught between 5.88 to 6.3 m (19 ft 3 in to 20 ft 8 in)." This might be an ENGVAR thing, but "between x to y" sounds odd to me.

Done

"Kalinin was declared best ship in the Pacific Fleet.." This would sound better as "was declared the best ship.."

Done

"..on 14 March of that year, she was struck from the fleet on 12 April 1963,[14][15] before being transferred to Sovetskaya Gavan for scrapping on 10 August of that year." Close repetition of "of that year".

Done

Honestly, these are all such minor nit-picks that I'm happy to straight up support this, nice work. Harrias ^talk 14:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.