Talk:Russian monitor Novgorod

Comment

I have been amassing data for many years on these type of circular ironclads. This is for a definitive book following an early article in 1974 on these vessels that I had published in the INRO (International Naval Research Organization Journal) " Warship International " (Ref: No 3 1974 p 218).

Would appreciate any data people may have concerning them including rare photographs.

Dr Cliff Roffey

e-mail address; cgroffey@aol.com

Images

We really ought to have an image - surely one of the ones in the external links is out of copyright? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a spectacular painting in Commons currently. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Popovka?

A translation/explanation of "popovka" the first time it appears would be appreciated by people who don't speak Russian. (i.e *why* did Tsar Alexander nickname it "popovka" - is it a slang term for "great wallowing beast"? Is it a reference to a similarly shaped bread roll? Is it just Popov's name with a '-ka' attached? Then what does the '-ka' mean? Is it a marker for a diminutive? a superlative? an expletive? Is there any significance for the Tsar to be giving it a nickname?) With the statement as it is currently, I feel I'm missing something that would be obvious to someone with more knowledge of Russian and 19th century Russian history. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The middle paragraph of the background section wasn't clear enough to show the relationship between the nickname and the designer?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This wasn't obvious to me either. I've tweaked the sentence to indicate that the nickname is derived from the designer's surname. Modest Genius ^talk 10:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

One source template

Hi all, I added the "this article relies heavily on one source" template because the supermajority of sources were from Mclaughlin. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, McLaughlin is the only thorough discussion of the ship available in English. And I'm not about to try and translate his Russian sources just to get rid of this template.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the "One source" orange banner at the top of the page. @JuxtaposedJacob: you added the banner in 2022. Is it still valid? If so, should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, probably. No (or perhaps very few) sources have been added since I added that tag. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 22:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• @JuxtaposedJacob: Would you like to bring this to GAR? You can probably explain your concerns more effectively than me. Z1720 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Russian monitor Novgorod

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Grounds for this GAR were not applicable; other issues appear to have been addressed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I added a single-source tag in 2022. Three years later, it seems that little (or nothing) has been done to add additional credible sources. I am writing this at the encouragement of @User:Z1720. Have a nice day! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 05:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Something of a drive-by comment, as I saw this in the GAR queue: there's nothing inherently wrong with relying heavily on a single source. The problem is that it can lead to "potential problems with notability, copyright violations, and original research", but I haven't seen any specific concerns raised here. It's also worth noting that Wikipedia:Articles with a single source is an essay, not policy. Bear in mind that delisting the article would require pointing to concrete issue that violate the WP:Good article criteria. Can you tell part of my job is telling the oversight team that they can't give people negative assessments if the thing they're trying to cite isn't actually in policy lol? Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

JuxtaposedJacob and Z1720, what say you to this? TompaDompa (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

• I encouraged this GAR to be opened so that this type of discussion could take place amongst editors more familiar with this topic area. In general, I would prefer that the article use more sources, and there are some listed in "Further reading". However, unless there is something inherently wrong with McLaughlin, or a source has information on a main topic that is missing from the article, I do not think that is itself a reason to delist. I'd like to read JuxtaposedJacob's thoughts before making a formal declaration. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

• I really don’t have anything to say beyond a belief that the article should rely on more than a single source, especially if it’s a GA. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 06:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

• See my small text comment above - we don't make up our own, subjective criteria, we apply the 'small-p' policy as written. While you may be correct that GAs shouldn't rely extensively on a single source, that's not what the policy says, so you would need to have the criteria amended before we hold the article to it. If you have no WP:WIAGA-based objections to the article's GA status, this should be closed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
• Agreeing with Parsecboy, and unless a significant issue is identified with McLaughlin, I'll remove the orange banner as well. Z1720 (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Warship is a standard publication in the topic area, and McLaughlin himself is a published expert on Russian naval history (see for example 1, 2, etc.) so there are no concerns with the quality of the source.

There is a limited preview of the book in Google Books. I do spot a few instances of close paraphrasing between the article:

Reassembly began on a specially-prepared slipway eight days later.

Compare to the source:

...and re-assembly began eight days later on a specially prepared slipway.

And another passage in the article:

Novgorod's guns were mounted in September, and she entered service the following year..."

And the source:

The guns were finally mounted in September... She entered service in the following year"

@Sturmvogel 66: - you may want to go back through the article and correct these and any other close paraphrasing. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Good catch. I didn't see any others. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I will note that WP:Close paraphrasing is covered by WP:GACR 2d: it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism (see further information about close paraphrasing at Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Plagiarism). In light of this, I will leave this GAR open. TompaDompa (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.