# Talk:Soviet cruiser Chervona Ukraina

What ultimately happened to the wreck? Is it still grounded on the spit, was it eventually broken up for scrap, or did it break apart on its own? Also, what's the relevance of the two links in the "See also" section, other than that they both have "Ukraina" in the title? Do those really need to be there? Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know if it's still there, only that one of my sources said its remains were still there in 1980. That Russian source about the wreck turns out to be about the sinking, not its remains. I think that those "See also" links are a crude attempt to disambiguate the light cruiser from the later missile cruiser and to reference another ship called "Ukraina". I'll dump the battleship reference, but the missile cruiser link will have to wait until I refresh my memory on how to disambiguate ship pages. Mind to evaluate this for B-class to save Belhalla from some work for the contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
They should be disambiguated by year of launch (the second one was launched in 1983, so when it's created, it should be at Soviet cruiser Chervona Ukraina (1983)). Yeah, I'll check it for B-class, but I'm about to head out the door, so it'll have to be later. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soviet cruiser Chervona Ukraina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Thurgate (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
prose:   (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
1. Is their a reason as to why their isn't a design/construction section? 

No, but I've added one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, Strum. Passed. Thurgate (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In the intro to this article the name "Chervona Ukraina" is translated as "Red Ukraine". This is incorrect. The Russian/Ukrainian adjective for "red" is "krasnii". "Chervona" comes from the Russian/Ukrainian word "cherno", which translates as "black". The name of the cruiser is a reference to the black and fertile chernozem soils of Ukraine. Please make this small revision to the article; I'm pretty sure it has already misled one published author. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: @Wreck Smurfy: Numerous sources unrelated to the cruiser in this google books search claim that Chervona Ukraina means "Red Ukraine" (and this isn't in the context of the cruiser but of unrelated newspapers. See also Chervona Ruta, a red flower whose name wouldn't make sense if chervona really came from cherno, and wikitionary. Kges1901 (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
OK Kges1901, good sleuthing. I have removed the "Red" from the translation at the top of the article, but according to the etymology section of Chervona Ruta you are right. Let's get Wreck Smurfy to come in here before we make any further changes though. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)