Talk:Brazilian cruiser Bahia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brazilian cruiser Bahia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  The line The small fleet sailed on 31 July for the British colony of Sierra Leone, utilizing almost nothing that was Brazilian aside from the ships themselves and the men crewing them. could be worded better. I'm assuming it means their provisions were supplied by other countries, but it's pretty vague right now.

  In the "Modernization" section, you should probably have a note explaining the discrepancy in the years she was modernized.

  Is this the Madsen machine gun we're talking about?

  She traveled 101,971 mi (164,106 km) in 357.5 days strikes me as odd; why not just round it up to 358 days?

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Everything looks pretty solid, just the few minor things I pointed out above. This will also serve as my A-class review for MILHIST; once everything is kosher here, I'll support the article over there. Nice work Ed! Parsecboy (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All done, though you may want to check my wording on your first point; I'm not happy with the wording (I wasn't before either, but I can't find a better way to present the information). —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The wording looks better, but I don't think it's 100% quite yet. I might see if I can smooth it out a bit. Also, I think you missed the line about the year discrepancy for modernization. Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, added a note now. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, everything looks good now. I'll pass it for GA. Parsecboy (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

These "emails with R.B. Haworth" edit summaries

I'll reproduce the email here for all interested. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
Are you sure that your entry on the Brazilian cruiser Bahia has the correct launching date? Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 and the Brazilian Navy's official site have the date as 20 April 1909. It'd be nice to clear this up, because I am currently writing a Wikipedia article on the ship!

Cheers, <name removed>

Hi,

The dates from builders' records are very clear - 20 January 1909 for BAHIA, 20 April 1909 for her sister RIO GRANDE DO SUL. This would tie in with the order of build. BAHIA was yard number 809, laid down 19 August 07, RIO GRANDE DO SUL laid down a fortnight later and commissioned two months later than BAHIA.

Conway has reversed the launch dates for the two ships - not an uncommon occurrence in naval books, including Jane's Fighting Ships.

Having said that, the builders' records are backed up by the 1914 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships - BAHIA January 1909, RIO GRANDE DO SUL April 1909. Not always a good source but much more contemporary and, in this case I believe, correct.

Rodger Haworth

Miramar Ship Index

Image review for FAC

Image copyright review - All image copyrights appropriate. Feel free to move this comment to the FAC page when this goes up. NW (Talk) 21:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Remains the biggest accident of Brazilian Navy

The sinking of Brazilian cruiser Bahia remains the biggest naval accident of Brazilian Navy in all times.Agre22 (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

I need a somewhat recent source that says that though. The Time piece referenced in this article mentions that, but it is dated to 1945! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

I've rolled back the edits changing the WikiProject assessments from 'FA' to 'A'. I believe this is still a featured article, no? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 13:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

The lead section says 120,000 mi / 190,000 km in 358 days, the article body says 101,000 mi / 164,000 km. I assume the former is a mistake. --dab (𒁳) 13:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed – the former was "over 100,000 nmi", and the latter was supposed to be 101,000 nmi. Thanks for your sharp eyes! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Absence of guide rails needs explanation

One of them shot it down, but also accidentally hit the depth charges on the stern—a direct consequence of the lack of guide rails that would normally prohibit the guns from being aimed at the ship.

Since this is pretty central to the cause of the ship's loss, it seems worth explaining why the usual guide rails were not in place. Anybody know? --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Such accessories were not usual at the time the ship was built, it being assumed that most trained gunners could be relied upon to cease firing as soon as their line-of-fire approached that of their own ship. While such incidents did happen, they were very rare and usually only occurred during intense action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.163 (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Modernization and inter-war years -- "embarked"?

The word "embarked" is used several times in this section (haven't checked the rest of the article) in a way I find confusing. I looked it up, to make sure I wasn't missing something, and I remain convinced that the word should be replaced with "aboard" or "on board," or rephrased using the word "carrying." The following sentence, already unwieldy, is further encumbered by the use of "embarked":

From 17–22 May 1935,[33][34] Bahia and Rio Grande do Sul[N 7]—joined at an unknown point by the Argentine battleships Rivadavia and Moreno, the heavy cruisers Almirante Brown and Veinticinco de Mayo, and five destroyers[34]—escorted São Paulo, with Brazilian President Getúlio Dornelles Vargas embarked, up the Río de la Plata (River Plate) to Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina.

Anyone agree?--Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"Embarked" would be the proper term. Perhaps it could be linked to wikitonary, but I don't think it needs to be changed. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it--it's not a big deal either way, both words mean virtually the same thing. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

7 mm (0.28 in) Hotchkiss machine gun

7 mm Hotchkiss machine gun ??? Isn't it a mistake ? DeansFA (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about the same thing. The link goes to a page about the company that manufactured the gun. That page has a link to a disambiguation page that lists 7 different Hotchkiss machine guns. Looking through those, only the M1914 lists a 7 mm caliber/cartridge (from Mauser). However, the M1922 doesn't list any calibers at all, so I don't feel confident changing the link to the M1914 gun on this basis. Does anyone have any idea which gun was installed? Gms3591 (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It was likely to be the M1922 in 7×57mm Mauser so I have changed the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.163 (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brazilian cruiser Bahia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226161020/http://www.naval.com.br/NGB/B/B006/B006.htm to http://www.naval.com.br/ngb/B/B006/B006.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sunk by an explosion?

After WW II, at least five German U-boats reached Argentina with no less than 50 high ranking Third Reich officials on board. During the trip they sunk a US Battleship and the Brazilian cruiser 'Bahia' with a death toll of more than 400. --2001:E68:543D:905:681E:173C:AD75:D (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Completely false, and not even a mention of a 'reference' for such false claims.50.111.60.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

What is the source for this account of why it sank?

Genuine question - complete novice here. Presumably, the account of target practice gone wrong comes from an eyewitness survivor? Would be good to explain this further. It's especially confusing at the moment given that the text describes survivors having thought they had hit a mine. But presumably the whole kite story must also have come from an eyewitness survivor? Some discussion of the sources would be good. Notyetlost (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)