Talk:Russian submarine Sankt Peterburg (B-585)

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

Russia: Technology & engineering / History / Military Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

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

Russian submarine Sankt Peterburg (B-585) 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 22, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 11, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Russian submarine B-585 Saint Petersburg was launched on the 300th anniversary of the Russian city of Saint Petersburg?

Title[edit]

Should it be "Russian submarine Saint Petersburg (B-585)", or is B-585 actually part of the name instead of a pennant number? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's how Soviet and Russian ships are named. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, gotcha. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian submarine B-585 Saint Petersburg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 14:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this review. --Noleander (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

It would be great if there were a footer navBox listing all/most Russian/USSR subs. Does such a navbox exist?

There's a navbox that has all the sub classes of the Soviets and the Russians, but it's only used on sub class articles, not on individual sub articles.

Infobox: Complement 35 ... missing citation.

Done. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Status: in active service, ... probably should be capital "In ..."

That's a template, and it's locked up. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead wording :" ...were detrimentally inefficient. " Probably better to say " ...did not meet specifications" or " were inadequate" or similar.

Done. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Russian navy/subs are in a bit of disarray now (at least that is what I've read). Perhaps this article could include a sentence or two giving an overview of the state of the Russian sub service in the 1994 -> today era. How is it relative to the USSR sub service of the 1960s -> 1980s? Have things declined in quality? morale? Just a bit of an overview, to give the reader context.

Done. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Past/present tense: "the main drawback is the .." Most of article is in past tense, but shifts to present in that sentence. Probably best to stay in past tense the entire article, even tho the sub still exists.

Done. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Location today? - Any idea where the sub is located today? In some port somewhere? A source says it is "in operational service in Baltic fleet" .. is that correct?

I've added the boat's fleet, but not its port, which is unknown. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By a process of elimination (Kalinigrad enclave or Leningrad) and the Kommersant-Vlast material of 2005, it appears likely that the operating unit may be the 25th Submarine Brigade at Kronshtadt, Leningrad Oblast, see http://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/BF.htm. In any event, it seems there are no submarines in Kaliningrad, so it must be in the Leningrad Naval Base or Kronshtadt area. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox pic caption: It would be neat to mention the location of the photo. Is that the city of St. Petersburg in the background?

I would think so, but there aren't any references to the boat's position in the photo. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"By 2006, two more of Saint Peterburg's sister boats, Kronshtadt and Sevastopol have had their keels laid down." - The "have had" doesnt read well ... it imlies that we are (now) in the year 2006. Could be "had had", but that is not much better. Maybe "Two sister boats ... had their keels laid down by 2006".

Done. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End Comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: