Talk:Soviet destroyer Gordy (1937)

Soviet destroyer Gordy (1937) 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 7, 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[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soviet destroyer Gordy (1937)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 14:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Parsecboy (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly nitpicks:

Watch ENGVAR - I spy "meter" but also "draught"
"many, but not all, of the ships handily exceeded their designed speed during their sea trials. Others fell considerably short of it." - this leads to the obvious question: was Gordy one of the former or the latter? Or did specific records not survive?
- Sadly, no. Where we have specific data, it's been added. Should we add a some sort of disclaimer for the majority of ships for which the data doesn't survive. Any suggestions on phrasing?
  - I think I've used something along the lines of "Specific figures for individual ships have not survived" in similar situations. I had to do something with Caio Duilio-class ironclad for Emrico Dandolo's original engines.
    - That works.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"destroy mines, and" - no comma here
"when a mine detonated when it...blown off when she struck", then a couple sentences later "damaged when her paravanes" - repetitive
- Two separate incidents on the same day? We tried to change the wording. Any suggestions?
  - I was getting at the repetition of "when" - you might change it to "Gordy was slightly damaged by a mine that detonated when it was struck by one of her paravanes"

- - Done. Kges1901 (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"defenders of Tallinn, Estonia" - move Estonia to the first time Tallinn is mentioned.
- Umm, look at the end of the previous para.
  - I was thinking of moving it to here: "The destroyer subsequently fought in the defense of Moonsund and Tallinn as..." Right now, it's at "the defenders of Tallinn, Estonia" in the paragraph after that. Parsecboy (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Done. Kges1901 (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I thought you were talking about the link to the city, not the mention of the country that it's in.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright, everything looks good now.