# Talk:Soviet submarine K-222

According to WP:SHIPPRONOUN, "each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively." The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition), as well as the style books of the Associated Press and the New York Times, recommend using "it" or "its" to refer to ships. The first reference to the ship in the article, "It was the world's fastest submarine," uses "it" rather than "she". I am improving the article's consistency.
Talib1101 (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Many commonly-used manuals of style and other institutions in multiple countries that have English as their primary language have chosen to change their usage to "it". According to WP:SHIPPRONOUNS, "either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and exclusively employ only one style." Given that the first draft of the original article used "it", and given that the article first refers to the vessel as it, and given that it is a submarine, not even a ship, I will be changing the usage for consistency once more. Talib1101 (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The established usage in this article was "she/her" but was partially changed by an IP editor on 14 July 2020 to "it" in contravention of WP:SHE4SHIPS. Therefore the correct action is to revert it all back to the feminine Lyndaship (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
It actually first used "it" and then introduced "she" (without removing "it) in this diff. Talib1101 (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
See also one of the sources referenced: "'The government ordered the scrapping. The submarine disposal is unique, the same as the submarine itself. The sub is being scrapped with fuel inside,' a source at the Severodvinsk administration told Interfax." Talib1101 (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If you change a ship's pronouns from "it" to "she", then please be consistent and change all instances in which the ship is referred to as "it" to "she", for the sake of consistency, rather than simply reverting my edit, leaving the article in an inconsistent state. Talib1101 (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Talib1101: First, issues related to article content should be discussed on the article talk page (which is is also clearly posted at the top of my tp). As there was alreasy a current, active discussion, there was certainly no need to split the discussion between here and there. Just say whay you have to say here like everybody else has. Second, you don't disrupt articles to make a point. Changing every single reference to the boat to "it" just makes the page look consistently silly. It's better to mix it up, using the name of the boat (eg"K-222"), along with "the vessel" and "the boat"/"the ship" (where applicable) along with consistent pronouns such as "she" and "her". This is better then just solely and repeatedly using "it"... "it" was here, then "it" was there, then "it" did this after "it" did that, then "it" loaded "its" torpedos into "its" tubes while enagaging "its" enemy, etc., etc. Lastly, I wasn't just "simply reverting your edit", I reverted back to BilCat's edit, which you had reverted, again to make a point. I didn't edit for hours after that (as RL came up), then only made a few edits (then RL came up again), I then came back to finish checking the article, only to find you had reverted, yet again. (You need to be wary of edit warring.) I would suggest you seek consensus before disrupting the article any further. - wolf 22:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: It doesn't seem that you're intent on following policy, but on enforcing your preference for a variant use of English. The original article used "it" more than "she" and I was editing it for consistency. But, because I am outnumbered, "it" was removed for consistency instead, and "she" preserved. The MOS has no preference for "she" over "it", but it seems that certain editors interested in ships do. I edited the article for consistency, and it was my edits that were originally reverted. Talib1101 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
See MOS:RETAIN "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page." Depending on what you think of as a stub, see the first daft, the first subsequent large addition, or the second large addition. In accordance with this, I'd like the edits to be reverted back to my original edit, before this whole thing started. Also note that it is a submarine, not a ship. Talib1101 (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
"Varieties of English" refers to the difference between American and British  English, but that said, consensus is king. I think it's time to let this go. Have a nice day. - wolf 06:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
As the article originally used "it", I have replaced all gendered references with that word.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Not ignoring all the effort you put into this page (I appreciate all the work you've done for this whole project), but the original article used both "it" and "she", and there is a consensus here to use the femimine pronouns. - wolf 22:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I flipped everything back to "it" before reading your comment. I really don't care to change it again. If someone else want to do so, I won't object.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm glad you said that. My edit wasn't just a personal preference, but was motivated by several factors; 1) There was a consensus here for fem. pronouns, 2) when the article was first created, both "it" and "she" were used, which is why we're defering to the consensus, 3) Even after your previous series of edits, there were still several fem. pronouns in the article, 4) And even still, after your last series of edits, and as I write this, there are still a half dozen fem. pronouns. 5) When I made my edit earlier to make the article consistent and inline with the consensus, I actually used very few pronouns, instead making small changes to the prose so as to not have to, instead using other constructions. I believe I only added three more to the total. I'm going to restore the consistency from before, and hopefully we can close this. Cheers & Thanks again - wolf 17:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I do normally use feminine pronouns so I can't say that I'm not surprised that I missed a few :-( Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soviet submarine K-222/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay! It's been ... snowy... here in the northwoods...

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lead:
"K-222 was the only ship of the Project 661 Anchar class (NATO reporting name: Papa) was a Soviet Navy nuclear-powered cruise-missile submarine built during the Cold War." you have two verbs here - the basics of the sentence (without subordinate clauses, etc) is "K-222 was the only ship was a submarine." Needs fixing.
The lead feels a bit skimpy - perhaps a bit more from the background section and some of the major stats?
Description:
Link for "design depth"?
Do we have a breakdown of the number of officers/non-commissioned officers/enlisted or just a lump sum?
Sadly no detailed breakdown
"The submarine had an endurance of 70 days." link or explanation for "endurance"?
Armament:
"between the inner and outer hulls outboard of the three forward compartments" this is jargony - can we link/explain "outboard of the three forward compartments" a bit better?
See if my rephrasing works for you.
Construction:
"Sevmash" we have a link, but a quickie explanation would be good here to avoid losing the reader to another article
Rephrased to inform the reader that it was the shipyard.
"revealed that 10 ballast tanks were not watertight" were these all of the tanks or some of them? if only some, what percentage? (And shouldn't the number of ballast tanks be mentioned in description?)
Ideally, but that level of data is generally lacking for Soviet submarines, even if post-Cold War sources.
"with the reactors and nuclear fuel still on board" ... one hesitates to ask but... what happened to the reactor/fuel???? (I really hope they didn't just ship it to a trash dump!)
Russians left many of their nuclear subs to simply rust away, waiting for Western cash to defuel them and reprocess the fuel. The whole thing is kinda fascinating, in a rather horrifying way.
I did a bit of light copyediting - please make sure I did not inadvertently change meaning.
I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Spotchecks:
"and this was completed by 4 June" is sourced to this source which supports the information
"this was the weakest torpedo armament ever fitted in a Soviet nuclear submarine" is sourced to Polmar & Moore, p. 138 which is a bit close in phrasing to the source - the source has "This would be the smallest number of torpedo tubes fitted in a Soviet nuclear submarine."
I couldn't think of a good alternative wording so I just deleted it as it was really only marginally interesting.
"By July 1959 a sketch design was ready for a submarine capable of 38 knots (70 km/h; 44 mph) and the State Committee for Shipbuilding had to make decisions about what the submarine's hull would be constructed of and what type of nuclear reactor would be used." is sourced to Polmar & Moore, pp. 136–137 which supports the information
"It was much stronger than steel for a given weight, resisted corrosion better and was non-magnetic." is sourced to [ Polmar & Moore, p. 137] which supports the information.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I've dealt with all of your comments, hopefully in a satisfactory manner. Lemme know what you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Looks good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@The ed17, is the description of the Soviet government's target as "exceedingly ambitious" based on some reliable source? --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Deeday-UK: Tagging the article author Sturmvogel 66 as well, but the background section backs that up: "he Council of Ministers issued a resolution on 28 August 1958 calling for a very ambitious ..." and on general principle the link "Chief designer N. N. Isanin decided to begin a clean-slate design that would use existing technology as little as possible." It's not a peacock word in this context, as the word is being used as a descriptor rather than promotion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The ed17, the article cannot 'back up' itself, and even so, the Background section reads 'very ambitious', not 'exceedingly ambitious'. That adjective might not be a peacock term in the strictest sense, but it's still a form of emphasis that is largely unnecessary, and downright inappropriate unless backed up by RS. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Polmar & Moore state that "the goal of Project of 661 - achieving all of the desired features in a single submarine - would be extremely difficult.", p. 136 I stand by my characterization.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)