Talk:Soviet submarine K-85

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soviet submarine K-85/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 10:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget about this--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Sturm, I haven't been around much, but will try and get this done soon. I've done a first read of the article, and honestly, it'll be some minor tweaks at most, it's in good shape, as expected. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Harrias are you still intending to complete this review? It has been 3 months. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Images

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• 6a. Both images are suitably licensed.
• 6b. Both images are relevant and suitably captioned.

Sources

2. Verifiable with no original research:

1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
3. it contains no original research; and
4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

• 2a. A list of references is provided in a suitable format.
• 2b. All content is suitably cited inline; what makes "http://www.deepstorm.ru/" a reliable source?
• 2c. No spotchecks carried out, as content is offline. AGF based on known good-reputation of nominator.
• 2d. No spotchecks carried out, as content is offline. AGF based on known good-reputation of nominator.

Regarding deepstorm, a surprisingly large number of secondary sources use its sub history pages as a reference, Naval historian Budzbon mentions the site. The details cited to the site are incredibly banal and routine, with no exceptional claims. Deepstorm is a database of Soviet submarines that includes content (cited on its pages) from various specialist publications relating to submarine history that are hard to get copies of in the US. Kges1901 (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Prose

1. Well-written:

1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• 1a. No prose issues relevant to the GA criteria; the 'Construction and career' gets a bit stilted occasionally, but nothing major.
• "The number of expensive nuclear-powered (Echo-class submarines) that it could afford.." The sentence should still be readable without the part inside the brackets, so I would recommend rewriting slightly as "..of expensive nuclear-powered (Echo-class) submarines that it could afford.." or similar.
• 1b. A couple of consistency queries:
• In the prose the article says "The submarine was renamed B-124..", while in the infobox, it says "Renamed B-85". I assume this is just a typo in the infobox?
• Similarly, the prose says "and a draft (ship) of 6.29 meters (20 ft 8 in)", while the infobox says "3.29 m (10 ft 10 in)".

3. Broad in its coverage:

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• 3a. All fine, more detail would have been nice in the 'Construction and career' section, but I guess we just don't have the details, so the article is sufficient.
• 3b. One query:
• "Unlike the later submarines of the class, K-68's hull was built from non-magnetic steel and was not covered with anechoic tiles." This feels superfluous to this specific article, being about a different boat. If you want the details about the hull design, I'd recommend including it without talking about K-68.
• 4. No issues or concerns.
• 5. No issues or concerns.

@Sturmvogel 66: Sorry for the long delay on this one. Nothing significantly up with this, just a few minor queries really. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

All raised issues resolved, I'm now content that this meets the GA criteria. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

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.