Talk:Soviet submarine K-68/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Background and description:
- In general - this duplicates word for word the information in the Juliett-class submarine article - we should not be repeating so much of this information in the article on the individual boats - yes, some detail is important but this article has almost word for word the same text as Juliett-class submarine#Background and description. In order to stay focused on the boat itself, this section needs some trimming beyond what I suggest below
- "Even though the Juliett class was inferior to the Echos" first - shouldn't that be "Echoes"? And second... why were they inferior to the Echoes?
Propulsion:
- "PS" link or description for this abbreviation?
- "They could carry enough supplies for 90 days of operation." Perhaps we can reword this to avoid the awkward change of tense from present to past - maybe "They were designed to carry enough supplies for 90 days of operation."?
Armament:
- Some of the details on the Shaddock missiles are off topic here - perhaps condense "The launchers were used by the surface-launched SS-N-3 Shaddock family of long-range, turbojet-powered, cruise missiles. The P-5D version was codenamed SS-N-3c by NATO and was a dedicated land-attack missile that could be equipped with either a high-explosive or nuclear warhead; it was withdrawn from service in 1965–1966." down to "The launchers were used by the surface-launched SS-N-3 Shaddock family of long-range, turbojet-powered, cruise missiles which could be equipped with either a high-explosive or nuclear warhead."
Fire control:
- Similarly - do we need the Nato names for the radar and datalink? It would be useful in an article on the radar/datalink, but it's just extraneous detail here.
Construction and career:
- Do we know when it was scrapped?
  - The Russians have been oddly reticent about this sort of info, even for their conventionally powered subs.
Spotchecks:
"On the surface, the submarines have a maximum speed of 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph)." is sourced to this source which supports the information
"In the late 1950s, the Soviet Navy was tasked to neutralize American bases and aircraft carriers." is sourced to this source which supports the information

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this; see if my changes are satisfactory--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]