Talk:Soviet submarine L-4/GA1

Comments

• First, some general comments
• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of relatively short length, with 978 words of readable prose.
• The lead is appropriately long at 140 words. It consists of one reasonably long and one very short paragraph. Suggest combining.
• Authorship is 74.4% from the nominator with contributions from 14 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.
• Suggest linking "broken up".
• Suggest removing NMS from NMS Regele Carol I in the table for consistency.
• Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text to the images for accessibility.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is generally accessible and appropriate.
   • Italicise Dekabrist as it is the name of the lead ship in the class.

   Good catch.

   • Suggest rewording "When submerged each shaft was driven by a PG 84 650-metric-horsepower (478 kW) electric motor for 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)."

   Done

   • Suggest using a comma to mark subclauses, for example after "For submerged cruising", "As completed", "By the end of 1934", "On 28 August 1934".

   Those are prefatory phrases, which do not require commas. I generally only add a comma if they get longer than any of those that you mention here.

   • Please amend "a minefields".

   Good catch

   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Sources are mainly books from a credible publisher.
   • Please confirm warheroes.ru is reliable.

   Its sources are listed and are themselves reliable

   It also provides photos of tombstones and memorial.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.
   • Spot checks confirm Budzbon, Radziemski & Twardowski 2022 and Rohwer 2005 are used appropriately.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 1% chance of copyright violation, which means it is extremely unlikely.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • Please include the year for "She was undergoing a refit when the Axis Powers invaded on 22 June" and link the invasion.

   I don't duplicate links already linked in the lede unless the article is far longer than this one.

   • There is a mention of the mining operations sourced from Platonov, 1996, on the Talk page.

   I'm awaiting a copy.

   Finally received and updated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

   • Was the vessel exclusively called Garibaldiets or L-4? The combined name L-4 Garibaldiets is mentioned by Monakov & Rohwer, 2012 The authors also note that the vessel was undergoing a refit on 21 June 1941 (q.v. the above comment).

   No, the boats first had political names, but the naming policy changed once the political trials started to get underway to avoid multiple renamings as people fell in and out of power. I suspect that Monakov & Rohwer combined the names to ensure that readers wouldn't be confused by the renamings.

   • Rodina is mentioned as a victory in the prose but not the table.

   • Good catch, I misread Rohwer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The inclusion of a table of ships sunk is useful. Please confirm whether Friederike was sunk or damaged.

   It was a constructive total loss.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced.
   • Are there items in Russian that can be used?
   • There may be some interesting anecdotes that could be included from Bykov's 1996 piece in Морской сборник called "Sailors from the Garibaldiets" (Моряки с Гарибальдийца). This is listed in the Russian wikipedia.

   I haven't been able to find a copy of issue 5, only most of the other issues of that year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

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

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The image has an appropriate PD tags.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The image is appropriate, although there are others in the Wikimedia folder.

@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66, could you please respond to the comments above? It has almost been a month since @Simongraham put up initial comments. Matarisvan (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Matarisvan:All done, thanks for your patience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for your work on this. Can you please ping when you have reviewed the other sources to ensure 3 and 4 are covered. I believe that, if it is appropriate, using the Monakov & Rohwer comment on the refit to clarify the year may kill two birds with one stone. simongraham (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The refit, which has been added, had nothing to do with the renaming which was in 1934. Note that Rohwer and Monakov used only the L-4 name when referring to her on pp. 137 and 171.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66, just checking in on the progress of this review. GoldRomean (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Any thoughts please? I can close this review if you prefer. simongraham (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that I've addressed all of your comments with one exception, see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: I think so. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)