Soviet cruiser Vitse-Admiral Drozd 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: February 6, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Maritime / Russian & Soviet 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 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

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soviet cruiser Vitse-Admiral Drozd/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 02:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Image appropriately licensed
• There's a ton of excess information in the infobox and main body. Rework the article so that it follows the example of Soviet cruiser Admiral Isakov. Ping me when that's done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for the example. I have modelled the infobox on that article. Unfortunately there is no equivalent silhouette, which I feel would really enhance the article. I feel that the main body may be longer than the one in the article on Admiral Isakov (and yet still shorter than many) as it may be more comprehensive. While balancing the need to have a summary style and broad coverage, I suggest this is valuable to the reader. Are there any particular sentences that you would like me to look at? simongraham (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've gone ahead and cleaned up a bunch of minor nits like dropping short tons, rounding to the first decimal point for weapon systems, adding full links to displacement and power figures and letting the templates for knots and nautical miles do their built-in triple conversion rather than specifying output in km.
    • I'm not too concerned with length as there's a lot of material to cover, but I would move weapons/sensor specs and stuff like the hull structure and electrical power to the class article. The focus here should be on the ship's service while the class articles focuses on the design background and the details about the ships themselves while summarizing their service. Forex, telling the reader that the ship used fixed-pitch propellers isn't necessary here as we're trying to give the reader enough information to make an informed assessment of the ship's capabilities, not a complete technical description. If the design and development sections in both the class and ship articles are virtually identical, you're doing something wrong. It took me years to realize that and I still need to go through a lot of my older articles and implement this (radical) concept.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I hear what you say as I have gone through a similar thought process, but I suggest that your older articles have merit that would be lost if they were reduced. For me, the argument that was most compelling is that the ship articles should be able to stand alone without recourse to the class article. In addition, although there are certainly many members of classes of slightly dissimilar vessels where the class article could be overburdened with detail and there are those where there may be consistency within the class that makes some of the data feel superfluous, I feel that it would do a disservice in both instances to rrequire the reader to move away from the page for specification data. I also suggest that there is sufficient in the background and development of the class, as well as more technical detail that is more related to the vessels' position as a class, that could be included in the class article so that it would still be of value to the reader to follow the link to find out more. Is there a forum for this discussion as I feel your point is good and would be worth getting consensus. As you say, it would affect many articles already written. simongraham (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I've never thought that articles should be stand alone as you can waste a lot of words summarizing something that has its own article which often completely derails discussion of the point you're trying to get across to the reader. I've had that debate at FAC and have not been persuaded by the counter-arguments advanced there. That said, I think a case can be made that a warship article should be complete enough to allow a reader to evaluate its suitability for combat without significantly referencing other articles. That would include shell weight/muzzle velocity/range, missile warhead(s)/range and torpedo warhead weight/speed/range settings, etc. That still excludes stuff like caliber length, fixed or variable pitch for the propellers and electrical power capacity and generation, IMO.
        • But I think that the class article is the far better place to facilitate that evaluation as it can dive far deeper into the design history and the rationales for making the design compromises actually made. All that weapon data in the ship article detracts from its necessary focus on what the ship did during its career which will only be summarized in the class article. And it seems pointlessly redundant to have all that info in both the ship and class articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • • I think we can find a compromise. I have retained the detail on the electrics as this can vary between vessels but removed the other data you suggest. I have also rewritten the first paragraph of the Design and development section in light of the article you cited. simongraham (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Vitse-Admiral Drozd was approved by Nikita Khrushchev Shouldn't this really be the class was approved?
  • That is consistent with the source. Sentenced moved to Design as it felt more relevant there.
• Move the link for launched to the first use in the lede. I think, though, that the commissioning year would be more informative for the reader.
  • Done.
• Tell the reader that Kolskiy Bereg and Okean-70 were naval exercises
  • Added and linked.
• Link ruble, commissioned, Guinea, overhaul
  • Ruble, commissioned and Guinea done. Overhaul is a disambiguation page, the closest article being Maintenance, which feels too generic. I have amended it to refit as that seems more appropriate.
• Крым-76 transliterate please
  • Done. It is the same name as Crimea.
• Tell the reader where Annaba is

Added.

• What kind of warship was Marshal Timoshenko
  • Clarified.
• 18 June 1976 I think that you mean 1986--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes. Amended.

@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for these comments. I have made the amendments and some other edits in line with your suggestions above. Please tell me if there is anything more. simongraham (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]