Talk:Soviet frigate Zadornyy/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 13:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- According to WP:RUS, all ый endings should be transliterated simply as a single y. But do the renaming after this review is completed, please.
- The English language sources list the name as Zadornoyy rather than Zadorny so this could lead to confusion if we don't handle it well. If we are to rename the title to be consistent with Russian, should the title be SKR or guard ship rather than frigate too?
- That's just it, they're both correct. It's how you decide to transliterate the extra letters and diacritics in Russian into English. It's just like the Wade-Giles and Pinyin transliteration systems from Chinese. At any rate Wiki's decided on a different method that the one used in your sources.
- True. That is a conundrum. WP:RUS is an essay not a policy ("This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."), WP:NCRUS is dormant and WP:NC-SHIP makes no mention of how names should be transliterated so the only policy I can find is WP:UE which states that "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be Romanized. Established systematic Romanizations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek)." I read this as saying that the priority is for the English-language form most commonly seen in credible literature, followed by a systematic Romanised version. However, that discussion is probably best not had within a review but in a more general space so we can get consensus. What do you think?
- I've mostly followed WP:RUS for the pre-Cold War ships that I've focused on, as English-language sources vary more in their transliterations for the older ships. I think that WP:SHIPS would be a better forum to have this discussion, so why don't you bring it up there?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- True. That is a conundrum. WP:RUS is an essay not a policy ("This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."), WP:NCRUS is dormant and WP:NC-SHIP makes no mention of how names should be transliterated so the only policy I can find is WP:UE which states that "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be Romanized. Established systematic Romanizations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek)." I read this as saying that the priority is for the English-language form most commonly seen in credible literature, followed by a systematic Romanised version. However, that discussion is probably best not had within a review but in a more general space so we can get consensus. What do you think?
- That's just it, they're both correct. It's how you decide to transliterate the extra letters and diacritics in Russian into English. It's just like the Wade-Giles and Pinyin transliteration systems from Chinese. At any rate Wiki's decided on a different method that the one used in your sources.
- The English language sources list the name as Zadornoyy rather than Zadorny so this could lead to confusion if we don't handle it well. If we are to rename the title to be consistent with Russian, should the title be SKR or guard ship rather than frigate too?
- No DABs, external links OK
- Image properly licensed. But be advised that captions are generally not considered full sentences and do not end with a full stop.
- Fixed.
- Link in the main body and infobox on first use: Guard ship, standard and full-load displacement, knots and nautical miles, gas turbines, surface-to-air missile, anti-submarine missile with hyphens, anti-submarine rocket, decoy dispenser, yard number, commissioned
- Linked Guard ship, knots, nautical miles, gas turbines, surface-to-air missile, anti-submarine missile with hyphens, anti-submarine rocket and commissioned. I have not done the others as Decoy dispenser and Yard number do not have wikipages yet and Standard and full-load link to the Displacement page which is already linked in the sentence.
- I'd suggest replacing the generic displacement link with the more specific alternatives. There is a link to yard number as an entry in the glossary of nautical terms. You're right about dispenser, to my surprise. There are links to individual systems, but not to a general article on them.
- No problem. I have linked the section redirects in the body and infobox as per MOS:SECTLINK.
- I'd suggest replacing the generic displacement link with the more specific alternatives. There is a link to yard number as an entry in the glossary of nautical terms. You're right about dispenser, to my surprise. There are links to individual systems, but not to a general article on them.
- Linked Guard ship, knots, nautical miles, gas turbines, surface-to-air missile, anti-submarine missile with hyphens, anti-submarine rocket and commissioned. I have not done the others as Decoy dispenser and Yard number do not have wikipages yet and Standard and full-load link to the Displacement page which is already linked in the sentence.
- When using tons and kW for the first time, please add link=on to link all units. Be sure to do this in the infobox as well.
- Done. Should the metres also be linked for consistency?
- Still need links in the infobox for the various displacements. I've removed the km from the knot and nautical mile templates as it defaults to miles and kilometers output. No need to link meters, IMO
- Done. I believe all the units "that are not obscure" are linked.
- Still need links in the infobox for the various displacements. I've removed the km from the knot and nautical mile templates as it defaults to miles and kilometers output. No need to link meters, IMO
- Done. Should the metres also be linked for consistency?
- Suggest outputting metric length conversions in feet and inches.
- Done.
- Add the ship power field to the infobox with the total output. Save the details for the main body.
- Done.
- Don't use x for the times symbol in the propulsion field and no need for model designations for turbines.
- Done.
- Suggest one line in the sensors field for each system with links to each if available.
- Done. Linked Navigational radar and sonar. The systems themselves would be red-links.
- That's fine. I've never seen detailed data on those systems so the prospect of articles on them is remote.
- Done. Linked Navigational radar and sonar. The systems themselves would be red-links.
- The design was allocated transferred or reallocated
- Done.
- Krivak class frigates hyphen
- Done.
- Power was provided by two M7 sets each consisting of a combination of a 18,000 horsepower (13,000 kW) DK59 and a 6,000 horsepower (4,500 kW) M62 gas turbine installed in a COGAG formation and mounted in a separate engine room, Two fixed pitch screws were fitted. Awkward. Suggest something like two M7 gas turbine sets, each ... combined in a COGAG installation and driving one fixed-pitch propeller. Also horsepower for turbines is expressed in shaft horsepower.
- Done.
- backed up by two quadruple torpedo tubes for 533 mm (21 in) torpedoes, a pair of two "mounts" for 533 mm ... "and" a pair of
- Done.
- URPK-5 Rastrub (SS-N-14B) "missiles"
- Done.
- word for Provactive typo
- Nicely caught. Strangely not picked up by the spellchecker.
- A.A. Zhdanov in Leningrad By himself? "The A.A. Zhandov Shipyard in Leningrad"
- Done.
@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for the review. Please check through my changes and tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk)
- A couple of links still needed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for clarifying those. That should be everything now. simongraham (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for clarifying those. That should be everything now. simongraham (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)