- Info Note, that width of each picture is proportional to submarine's length. Scale is 1m=10px. --Rave (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support The set and its images fulfill all the criteria in my view. And it's undoubtedly it's a very nice piece of work! --MichaelBueker (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I am sorry to disagree on some points. Firstly the source is lacking on most of the images: there is an indication for this one ("Based at photos from..." with a link that seems relevant but that leads to a 404 error) but there isn't any mention of the original source for other images of the set. Secondly criterion 4 isn't totally met IMO (4. fully described on the image page): for instance, the title of that image is "Charlie II class SSGN.svg" but the description includes the number "670" ("Силуэт ПЛАРК проекта 670М"). So it seems to be a more precise model and there isn't a perfect matching between the file title and its description. That could prevent the full understanding of thoses images IMO (it's a pity I can't read Russian, but it might be the case of a large part of Commons users). It's the reason why an English description would be appreciated. Thirdly the scope is "Soviet and russian submarine classes" so if there is a difference between Soviet ones and Russian ones (because of the dates of production?), that should be indicated in the images description. --Myrabella (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Info Most of soviet and russian submarines were built in USSR and were decommissioned in Russia, so it's hard to divide them. I'll make correct descriptions on english very soon. Pilot.strizhi.info is temporary unavailiable, but i'm sure, that it will not last long. Will bitmap drawings or offline sources (with ISBN and page numbers) be suitale sources for these files? --Rave (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Question It seems, i can divide this set into some parts, but i need help in it. Set can be divided to Soviet submarines and Russian submarines, but alot of ships were built in USSR and served both in Soviet and Russian Navy during it's career. Some ships of soviet classes were built in Russia. Some submarines, like Sierra or Borey, were in fact designed in USSR, but built in Russia. So, this variant of division will have intersections. Second variant is to divide this set into SSN, SSBN and SSGN sets. Then some images will not include and i'll nominate them later, when (if) Mike1979 Russia will finish sets about conventional submarines. Which variant is better? --Rave (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- About the sources, I recommend to add them even if there are offline sources (with ISBN and page numbers as you suggest). About how to divide the set, other reviewers' advice welcome. --Myrabella (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I also think, that the most serious problem is lacking of the reliable source. Other questions are not so serious.
- Firstly, for example, "Charlie II class SSGN" is "ПЛАРК проекта 670М". Sources of this are such page. (МОДИФИКАЦИИ:.....670-М «Скат-М» (Charlie-II class).....) or many others. The official name is "проект 670М", "Charlie II class" is a kind of her nickname by NATO. (All men, who know Soviet/Russian submarines, know this, although an English description is necessary.)
- Secondly I also think, that it is hard to divide them into 2 set (Soviet ones and Russian ones). If it is necessary to divide, I prefer to User:Rave's first variant (Set can be divided to Soviet submarines and Russian submarines......this variant of division will have intersections). His second variant (divide this set into SSN, SSBN and SSGN sets and set of Diesel-electric submarines also necessary) is logical, but there are not so many files as we divide them into many sets.
- In principle, I can't agree to this nomination while we don't see any source and don't check accuracy of files, although I recognize the value of these files. -- BezPRUzyn (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Scope changed from Soviet and russian submarine classes to Soviet ballistic missile submarine classes . I changed the scope this way, because soviet SSBN is the fullest set. And i plan to nominate all these files one by one as the most valued images about corresponding submarine types. --Rave (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
- Info Added all sources. Recheck plz. --Rave (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Question Is it just "the fullest" of the sets, or does it actually contain all SSBNs that served in the Soviet Union? I don't have the time or the knowledge to verify this, but it is important. --MichaelBueker (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- It contains all main types of soviet SSBN, but doesn't contain some single ships built by individual projects. In fact, individual ships often looks like main project, and only Hotel-III is absent (note longest sail in the world, which differs this project from Hotel-II), see ru:Типы подводных лодок ВМФ СССР и России#Атомные с баллистическими ракетами. --Rave (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I am not a specialist, so, although personally I believe and know those sources, I don't know that those "sources" are really reliable and how we can understand actual diagrams from their photos.--BezPRUzyn (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I´m a fan of Mike´s work, but I would support individual nominations for each of these drawings, one by one, as its just to time-consuming to check the details of all drawings at the same time. You should name standard soviet/russian literature as primary source and add web pages only as additional sources. (for example the best reference I know for SSBN´s is Apalkov´s "РПКСН и многоцелевые ПЛ" ( SSBNs and multi-purpose submarines) from his "Корабли ВМФ СССР" (ships of the Soviet Navy) series. You could present larger numbers of sources the way I did for the Akula ) Alexpl (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The reservations of two better specialists—BezPRUzyn and Alexpl—don't prompt me to remove my previous oppose. --Myrabella (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I made a quick check of all drawings with the books I have at hand (see User talk:Alexpl#source check for VIC candidate) and based on that, I can support the candidature for "Soviet ballistic missile submarine classes" if you ad literature as source for each file. Feel free to copy&paste from that list if you like. Alexpl (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support With reliable sources added, the images now fulfill all the criteria to become "valued images" in the set "Soviet ballistic missile submarine classes" from my point of view. Alexpl (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks to the nominator and to the author for the added sources. I regard Alexpl's support as a further reason to remove my oppose. --Myrabella (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support Me too! Alexpl, thank you for your check! I read User talk:Alexpl. Ой, какой способный вы, User:Mike1979 Russia!--BezPRUzyn (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)