Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Soviet destroyer Nezamozhnik

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Soviet destroyer Nezamozhnik edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

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

Soviet destroyer Nezamozhnik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

One of the longest articles of a collaboration on Soviet World War II destroyers, this passed a GA review several weeks ago. It is about a ship that was originally built by the Russian Empire during World War I that did not reach completion before the fall of the Tsar, but saw an extremely active career during World War II. Kges1901 (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

Looks a great article, I only see some minor issues. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • she escorted a floating dry dock with a capacity of 5000 tons 5000 --> 5,000. Also what kinda "tonnes" is it, metric tons or long tons?
  • she returned to Novorossiysk on 30 December, then to Poti on New Years' Day 1942 suggesting New Year's Day.
  • four single 102-millimeter (4.0 in) I don't think the "0" is necessary, or is it?
  • by a single 76.2-millimeter (3.0 in) Same as above is it necessary?
  • raised by the Soviet government Soviet Government.
  • Generally a nonspecific mention of a government is not capitalized. Kges1901 (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • sailing 45,856 nautical miles How much is that in normal miles and km?
  • Added km conversion, can't have more than one conversion in the template. Kges1901 (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • to two Oerlikon 20-millimeter (0.79 in) cannon on the aft bridge. Cannon is the British English plural version I suggeste the article should use the American cannons.
  • Also which calendar do you use before the October Revolution?
  • Shouldn't every date which is before February 1918 have an old and a new style date?
  • The source I used for these dates includes a note saying that dates before the October Revolution (November 1917) are in Old Style, thus 1918 dates do not need a conversion. Kges1901 (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • She went into Odessa for refuelling on 30 August, refuelling is British English please use refueling.
  • the destroyer received four 12.7-millimeter (0.50 in) DShK machine guns on the forward and aft bridges, The "0" after the "5" isn't necessary. CPA-5 (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comments anymore. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome, I am happy to help you both. CPA-5 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, Kges, nice work. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no duplicate or dab links (no action required)
  • you provide the Old Style date conversion for a couple of dates in the Construction section, but not elsewhere, including those in the earlier section. Is there a reason for this?
  • in the infobox you provide 21 March 1917 for the date of launch, but this is the O.S. date in the body. Is the ordered date O.S. also?
  • Have addressed the above two by adding the missing date conversions. Kges1901 (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pavel Batov 2.jpg: would probably be best to face this into the article (right align)
  • Done
  • the 4 x 7.62 MGs aren't mentioned in the infobox. Should they be?
  • Added them to infobox.
  • that she was completed with --> "with which she was completed"?
  • Done
  • 7 September 1920 for completion.[5][4]: suggest reordering refs into numerical order
  • Done
  • In the fall of 1925: probably best to say what month here as seasonal references are unclear and can cause confusion
  • Done. This is the movement referenced in the following two sentences.
  • Shortly after her completion, Nezamozhnik participated and In the fall of 1925 Nezamozhnik and her: should this be Nezamozhny at this point as the rename is mentioned after this?
  • Done. Good catch.
  • Messina, Italy, (7 to 10 October), and Piraeus, Greece, (11 to 14 October): suggest moving the commas here: " Messina, Italy (7 to 10 October), and Piraeus, Greece (11 to 14 October),"
  • Done
  • on the next day: "on" is probably unnecessary here
  • Done
  • Tuapse a day later. She left for her: it probably isn't clear which ship "she" refers to here
  • Done
  • 173 102 mm shells as there are two numerical values here it is probably best to spell the first one out here
  • Done
  • do we know what the ship did between November 1944 and the end of the war?
  • Nothing of combat significance, since the Soviets had control of the Black Sea by then.
  • do we know what the ship did between the end of the war and Jan 49?
  • Probably routine peacetime duty, but no information in sources.
  • suggest adding alt text: [1]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

A few comments from me:

  • her sea trial speed didn't meet her designed speed. In those circumstances, don't we use her sea trial speed in the infobox?
  • where were the primary and AA guns located?
  • where was the second 76.2 mm gun located?
  • comma after "During March 1934"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No info about what she was doing between 1936 and 1941?
    • Sadly, Soviet sources tend to focus on wartime activities. We're lucky to have even this much.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "and guarded the battleshipit"
  • "escorted the tanker Kuybyshev"
  • "she and the minesweeper Gruz"
  • do none of the Further reading sources have anything unique to say?

That's me done. Nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Soviet_destroyer_Nezamozhnik&oldid=880581553"