Talk:Botik of Peter the Great/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 10:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article to read. Mainly nit-picks from me:

"an earlier theory held that the boat was a gift from Queen Elizabeth to Ivan the Terrible in the 1580s.": Earlier than what? Perhaps "an alternate theory…"
"It also has four tiny cannons": Can we be more precise? Tiny implies a judgement, and is perhaps a little close to the source anyway? If no measurements can be founds, "small" would work. (Sorry if this seems fussy!)
"Unlike Russian vessels of the time, the boat was designed with the ability to sail against the wind.": As this was (eventually) a Russian vessel, perhaps "Unlike other Russian vessels…" And "sail against the wind" is from the source. Is this such a specific technical term that no alternative phrasing could be used? The wikipedia article talks about "sail to windward" or "beating against the wind". Again, a small point, but close paraphrasing is a funny one.
~~"The boat was pulled from a pile of junk in either a barn or a storeroom": The source also uses "pile of junk", which is slightly unencyclopaedic anyway.~~
"It was escorted by Elizabeth of Russia in naval uniform.": Was the botik or Elizabeth in naval uniform?

General points:

"Peter learned to sail the ship on waters near Moscow.[3][1]:42": Usually, ref 1 would come before ref 3, unless I have missed something in the MoS about using this particular referencing system.
I'm not a fan of the rp template, but I believe that the idea is to avoid using page numbers in the reference. In which case, ref 1 should not include a page range at all.
There were a couple of minor close paraphrasing issues but spot-checks revealed no other issues. However, I can't see all the sources, so it may be worth having a quick check that there are no other instances like these of very short phrases which are taken from the source; it does not matter if there is no other way to write it, but the examples above are of language which would perhaps stand some rephrasing.
Images all fine. No dablinks, external links fine.

I'll place this on hold, but no major obstacles to passing. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I copy edited out the alleged close paraphrasing. I did not deal with the odd phrase "escorted by Elizabeth of Russia in naval uniform." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll address the other issues soon (I'm a bit busy with readings for class and the Super Bowl today). As far as the sentence is concerned, Elizabeth was in naval uniform, not the boat. I can't think of a more grammatically correct way of writing it, and can a boat be in naval uniform? If anyone has a suggestion, it would be appreciated. Ryan Vesey 17:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what about "Empress Elizabeth, in naval uniform, escorted the botik"? In addition, does anyone have any thoughts about the usage of "boat" vs. "botik"? Currently, I've alternated throughout. Ryan Vesey 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would work. So would "Wearing naval uniform, Empress Elizabeth escorted the botik". On botik/boat, I think it works fine at the moment and there is no particular need to use the same word throughout. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: On the "alleged" close paraphrasing, this was (and is) not a huge problem in the article, and hopefully I haven't given the impression that it is. My personal take on it is to be better safe than sorry, and for instances like this, where there is some element of "author's style" in a phrase, it is better to use different words and structure where possible. Where it is not possible, then that cannot really be a close paraphrasing issue. Others take a different view, some stricter and others less so. I suspect there is no right answer. I hope I did not set any alarm bells ringing; it was only ever a minor issue here. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: In regards to "an earlier theory", it is difficult to modify this without delving into original research. The theory appeared in a 1997 article, but did not appear in the book initially published in 2003. Calling this an alternate theory rather than an earlier theory requires an assumption that the sources coming later were incorrect. (a discussion regarding this issue can be found at User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 23#How do I turn my OR into something that isn't OR but presents adequate information) In regards to "unlike Russian vessels of the time", I don't see a compelling reason to change it. The boat was of English design and possibly English creation, and it was also mentioned as being "new". The ability to sail into the wind is a simple saying, changing it confuses matters plus, reading the article on Tacking (sailing), it appears to refer to a specific action, not the general ability to sail into the wind. The source is also PD, so any possible close paraphrasing issues don't apply. In regards to the rp template, if somebody is more familiar with the SFN template and wants to change it, I don't have a problem. I'm not sure about normal procedure, for reference 1, I gave the page range of the majority of the information, and only used RP for the bits of information that did not come from those pages. I moved the refs around as you suggested and modified the Empress Elizabeth bit. Ryan Vesey 18:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, any remaining issues aren't directly GA ones, so I'll pass now. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the advice and the review. Ryan Vesey 23:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]