Talk:Soviet destroyer Svobodny (1940)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in good shape. I have a few comments:

in the lead, "evacuated" seems odd for a ship, more like something for people, perhaps "transferred" or "moved"?

Done

suggest turning lk=on for the displacement

Done

the infobox speed doesn't match the body

Done

the range in the infobox should probably be the range of the range, if you know what I mean?

Done

were the main guns behind gunshields?

Visually, the mounts look like turrets, except they didn't provide all-round protection and were open (unshielded) from the rear

any ideas what Gruppe(n) attacked her when she was sunk?

I've checked Christer Bergstrom's relevant volume of Air War on the Eastern Front and that source does not identify which unit

67→Sixty-seven, as it starts a sentence. Also 101→One hundred and one, per MOS:NUMNOTES

Done

the licensing of File:Unidentified Project 7U in the Black Sea.jpg seems implausible, given the likelihood of a USN sailor taking a pic in the Black Sea prior to 1943

The source is an ONI handbook on the Soviet Navy, so they probably took a photo from the Russians. Either way, nobody's complaining about the copyright, and the photo has been on the internet for years.

I'm going to ask Nikkimaria for an opinion here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current tag is more than likely incorrect, and "free on the Internet" != "free for Wikipedia". If you want to keep the image it'll take some digging to determine provenance and thus status. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the US and the USSR were allies, it's entirely plausible that the photo was semi-surreptitiously taken by a naval attaché. The lack of definition rules a Soviet press photo as are some of the other photos in the handbook. Given that we have wartime photos like File:Leningrad-class DD 1944 80-G-176369.jpg that are explicitly credited to an attaché, their ability to take this blurry, long-range photo seems quite reasonable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest adding that supposition to the image description at a minimum. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kges1901 (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give the licensing the benefit of the doubt here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by acceptably licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]