Soviet destroyer Serdity (1940) 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 13, 2019. ( 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 / 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 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soviet destroyer Serdity (1940)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! ( talk · contribs) 01:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Looking at this one. — Ed! ^(talk) 01:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Pass A few quibbles:

   • "after receiving a message that a German convoy had been spotted." -- Any idea of where that convoy was or how far away?

• Sadly no.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply

1. • "Postwar, the wreck was raised in pieces and towed to Tallinn for scrapping between 1949 and 1952.[6]" -- does this mean it was towed from 1949 to 1952 or scrapped from 1949 to 1952, or both?

• Both, I think.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply

1. • Dab links and external links show no problem. Fixed one dup link and no others are problems. Copyvio tool shows green.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Offline sources accepted in good faith. A cursory check of the source material on Google in English sources backs up material cites in the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass Appropriate context included from ship class article; additional detail really only has a place there for consistency.

   • Would prefer to have a unit cost, but records on this subject aren't common in the source material as I understand it.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass Healthy mix of book sources, in both Russian language and English text. No over-reliance on any one historian or source material.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass One image included under public domain tag where appropriate.

7. Other:

   Pass A few smaller details that could be clarified, but overall not by themselves enough to place the article on hold. So, passing for GA with comments noted above. Well done. — Ed! ^(talk) 05:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the review.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply