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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 13:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take a look at this. Feel free to challenge or correct me where necessary.

• Duplicated links: NATO reporting name and Anti-submarine warfare

• Fixed.

• Earwig reports no copyvio
• Image looks good
• No edit war (difficult to accomplish when you're almost the only editor!)

• Thank you!

• Include "1135" in the Krivak-class frigate link; "1135" doesn't mean anything to most people without the link

• Reinserted missing word.

• "Большой Противолодочный Корабль, BPK" - which part of the previous sentence is this translating? it's not obvious

• It is the capitalised title. I have added a clarification to the main text.

• "minor hull damage from colliding with the destroyer USS Fife." - this makes it sound like a traffic accident rather than an attempt to stop her getting close to the US fleet
• I don't think the beam was 142m, as the infobox claims!

• Oops, comma replaced.

• Installed power figures don't seem to match up with in text claims?

Hopefully that is clearer now.

• "TsKB-340", "TsKB-53" - I assume these are design/construction facilities but it really isn't obvious and should be clarified

• Noted that these are design bureau.

• "led to a revisit of the project" - worth clarifying that this was to ensure their new vessels measured up to the American ships, and when did this occur?

• Yes. The date is not in the sources.

• You note the location of TsKB-53, can you do the same for TsKB-340?

• Done.

• "larger and more capable design." - in what ways was it more capable?

• Read on...

• "BPK" - if this means anti submarine role, why not just put that? An acronym from a different language isn't very helpful to the casual reader

• I have added an explanation.

• "Guard Ship" does not need capitalising

• Guard Ship is a translation of the official Soviet designation, SKR.

• "two M7 sets" - is there no link to this? I realise that you explain what they were straight afterwards

• There is no article.

• "Razyashchiy had a primary mission of anti-submarine warfare" - does this not go against your previous assertation that she was now a guard ship? Probably worth noting that she was a guard ship against submarines specifically, if that was the case; otherwise the guard ship sentence is a little vague

• The original role designation was Large Anti-Submarine Ship (BPK) and later Guard Ship (SKR). The sources are not clear what the difference was in practice.

• "quadruple torpedo tube mounts" - torpedoes to fight submarines?

• They were dual purpose, although primarily anti-submarine.

• "two single mounts for 45 mm (2 in) 21-KM guns were carried on the superstructure." - this doesn't sound like the guns were actually present. Were they?

• The sources are not clear as to how often the guns were actually carried.

• "decoy-dispenser" - decoy or decoy-dispenser needs some kind of link

• There is no article. Would you like a red link?

• that can be translated to striking

• Added

• Last sentence of para 1 and first of para 2 both use "undertook", which is a little awkward

• Edited

• You note in the lede that the Mauritius visit was to foster relations, but only say in text that this was the case for the Vietnam visit

• There is more detail on the Vietnam visit. I have adjusted the lead to clarify.

• I realise her service won't have been of the most exciting nature here, but are you able to note vaguely what she was up to between 1983 and 1991?

• Unfortunately only in unverified sources.

• References generally look good. Is there no ISBN for Balakin?

Unfortunately not.

That's all I have for now, will await your replies. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thank you. Please take a look at my revisions. simongraham (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham Happy with all your changes so far. Do you think military dummy might be an appropriate link for decoy? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thank you. Unfortunately that article does not have any additional information on the system, and I cannot find a better alternative. There may be an article to be created covering the Soviet range of decoy dispensers, like the PK-10 and PK-16, their component parts like the KT-216 and the technology behind them, but I do not sufficient high quality sources to do that justice. If there is an article like that, I think it is worth adding the link at that stage. What do you think? simongraham (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham I think that's a fair compromise. Happy to pass this article as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]