Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Petropavlovsk-class battleship/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2018 [1].

Petropavlovsk-class battleship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Petropavlovsk class was a group of three Russian battleships that participated in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05, all based at the leased Russian base at Port Arthur in China. One was sunk early in the war and the other two were sunk during the Siege of Port Arthur. One of them was salvaged and put into service by the Japanese as a training ship. She participated in the Battle of Tientsin in 1914 where the Allies occupied that German base in China and was sold back to Russia in 1916. Aside from a minor role in intimidating the neutral Greek Government, she did nothing else of note during World War I. The ship was captured by the British when they intervened in North Russia during the Russian Civil War and was ultimately scrapped by the Soviets. The article passed a MilHist A-class review earlier this year and I've recently cleaned it up and believe that it meets the FA criteria. I'd like reviewers to look for any remnants of BritEng and unexplained jargon as well as identifying any prose issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Not much to say. All looks in order.

  • "as her original name was in use by another battleship." nothing in the body supports this.
  • You seem inconsistent to me with "the navy" vs. "the Navy" (Russian)
  • "and were good seagoing ships. Their crew consisted of 26–27 officers and 605–25 enlisted men;" first part sounds a bit opiniony.
  • <snicker> It is, but it's not my opinion, but McLaughlin's. Happy to rephrase if you think it necessary.
  • "the ships reached maximum speeds of 16.29 and 16.38 knots (30.17 and 30.34 km/h; 18.75 and 18.85 mph) from 11,213 and 11,255 ihp (8,362 and 8,393 kW), respectively, during their sea trials." I might move "during their sea trials" to the front of the sentence so it doesn't get lost.
  • Good idea.
  • "The ships also carried 50 mines to be laid to protect their anchorage in remote areas.[8]" I might make this "Each ship ...its anchorage ..."
  • You say "armor" but also say "armoured".
  • Never fails, I always miss a couple of the wrong variant of English.
  • "a fire broke out aboard the ship and killed 2 crewmen and injured an additional 28." to avoid the and ... and, suggest "... the ship, killing two crewmen and injuring ..."
  • Good idea.
  • "Vitgeft made another attempt to break through the Japanese blockade on 10 August in accordance to a direct order from Tsar Nicholas II." I might say "obedience" rather than "accordance"
  • Much better idea.
  • Sturm, have you actioned these? As an aside, this hasn't been as well patronised as I'd generally expect -- I've listed in FAC Urgents but if it doesn't get more commentary soon we'll have to look at archiving. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support subject to the prose criticism below being worked out. Otherwise seems in order. From my perspective, prose seemed stiff and technical, but no different from other of his FAs.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Brassey's should be italicized
  • File:Sevastopol_NH_81875.jpg: which of the Russian rationales is believed to apply?
    • Umm, all of them? Deleted.
  • File:Russian_battleship_Poltava_destroyed_at_Port_Arthur.jpg: per the given tag, this needs a publication date
    • Unknown, but almost certainly before 1910.

Support Comments by Kges1901

[edit]
  • Link Baltic Fleet in background and description
    • Good catch.
  • Second half of fourth paragraph in background and description needs more variety, alternating between 'the', 'they', 'the', 'they', 'their' is somewhat repetitive.
    • I changed it a little; there's not much I can do as there isn't much action in this paragraph and I pretty much have to use collective pronouns.
  • If possible, you may want to vary the phrasing in the fifth paragraph, as it currently has sentences mostly beginning with 'the'
    • See how it reads now.
  • First paragraph of armament also has a profusion of sentences beginning with 'the'
    • See how it reads now.
  • The guns had a maximum elevation of 15° and could traverse 270°. Each one was provided with 58 rounds. could be combined
  • 2nd para of armament has three consecutive 'the...' sentences
  • They fired shells that weighed 91.4-pound (41.46 kg) with a muzzle velocity of 2,600 ft/s (792.5 m/s). They had a maximum range of 12,602 yards (11,523 m). could be combined if possible
  • 3rd para of armament description of fire rates and shell sizes appear almost identically phrased, and are almost vertical from each other
  • Verticality is strictly dependent on your monitor's size. I don't have range figures for either gun so I can't really mix up their data in a more pleasing way by leading with the muzzle velocity
  • 1st para of protection has four sentences that begin with 'the belt'
    • Good catch, see how it reads now.
  • Last para of protection has three consecutive 'the' sentences
    • In a description I don't actually think that that's a problem.
  • Under 'ships' for Poltava, 'scrapped' should be consistently capitalized unless there is a reason not to
    • Good catch.
  • In service, if you don't include patronymics for other officers you don't need to do that for Stark
  • Good point.
  • Relink Port Arthur, Battle of Port Arthur, Pacific Squadron, Battle of the Yellow Sea, Russo-Japanese War
    • Once suffices, IMO, in an article of this length.
  • Casualties included Admiral Makarov and his guest, the war artist Vasily Vereshchagin, 26 officers and 652 enlisted men - Clarify to include whether Makarov is double counted.
  • Done.
  • The squadron was spotted relatively quickly and the Japanese main fleet intercepted the Russians in the early afternoon. During the Battle of the Yellow Sea Rephrase to connect these events so that it is clear that the interception began the Battle of the Yellow Sea.
  • How is it now?
  • Forczyk does describe the hit that killed Vitgeft as a "lucky break", but is that the same as "lucky hit" as he states that Asahi fired a salvo, which presumably was aimed at Tsesarevich.
    • I don't understand what you're trying to say.
  • took on a lot of water unencyclopedic language, suggest rephrase
    • See how it reads now.
  • Poltava was sunk in shallow water that same day by a shell that started a fire in a magazine that eventually exploded A technicality, but did the shell sink the ship or did the magazine fire sink the ship?
    • <Strother Martin voice>What we got here is a failure to contain the fire that was caused by a shell detonating inside the ship that led to a magazine explosion that so disrupted the ship's fabric that it allowed external water to quench the fire once the ship settled on the bottom of the harbor.</voice> I'm sorry, what was the question again, Senator?
  • Add rank for Essen
    • I'm not sure what it was. His entry in The Historical Dictionary of the Russo-Japanese War says that he was a commander when he was appointed to command Sevastopol, but I'm not sure what that was in Russian terms of that time. Captain 2nd Rank? I dunno. If you've got it, feel free to add it.
  • Link Siege of Tsingtao
  • You may want to mention that Russia and Japan were now on the same side of World War I when Poltava was sold back
    • Good idea.
  • Link Greek Government and link to Macedonian Front for military operations in Macedonia
  • in bad shape Perhaps rephrase to be less idomatic

Kges1901 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceranthor

[edit]
  • "and were based at Port Arthur" - "based at" seems like an odd construction; is this one commonly used for military battleship articles?
  • "All three ships participated in the Battle of Port Arthur on the second day of the war." - might be worth giving that specific date?
  • ". Petropavlovsk sank two months after the war began after striking one or more mines laid by the Japanese. Her two sister ships" - might be worth mentioning all three names before making references to them individually?
  • "but with her main armament of four 12-inch (305 mm) guns mounted in barbettes." - does "her" refer to the model ship? how is that different from the original? the lay reader wouldn't know, and so this sentence is confusing. Might add "but unlike the Imperator Nikolai I's armanent where..., the battleships had four ... mounted in barbettes"? The very next few sentences do this quite effectively I think.
  • "The class was designed with a displacement of 10,960 long tons (11,136 t), a full-length waterline armor belt, and was approved in January 1891.[2] - this is a run-on sentence as is; should be rephrased as "with a displacement... AND a full-length... belt" and the last bit should perhaps be converted to a gerund like "receiving approval in...". Also, which authority approved them?
  • "This saved enough weight that four additional six-inch guns could be added.[3]" - You start with "this" but the previous sentence mentions two changes
  • "The Petropavlovsk-class ships were 376 feet (114.6 m) long overall, had a beam of 70 feet (21 m) and a draught of 28 feet 3 inches (8.6 m)." - similar run-on issue to aforementioned one; the issue arises after "overall"; easy fix, just add "and" before "had a beam"
    • I was taught to generally avoid using more than one "and" in a sentence. The only possible issue that I see is that there's no verb for the last clause, though it's implied. So I could add another "had", although I think that the sentence really doesn't need it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They had a designed metacentric height of 5.43 feet (1.7 m) " - they is vague given all the features you've mentioned in the paragraph; would suggest replacing with "the petropavlosk class" or something similar
    • Done
  • "The guns had a maximum elevation of 15° and could traverse 270°." - what does traverse mean here? is this a jargon term I should know, or am I just being obtuse?
    • Linked
  • "seven and a half feet high" - conversion to meters?
    • All measurements are converted on first use only.
  • "The armor of the main-gun turrets and their supporting tubes was 10 inches thick (Krupp armor in Poltava, nickel steel in the other two) with roofs 2 inches (51 mm) thick. The turrets of the secondary armament had 5-inch sides with 1 inch (25 mm) roofs. The six-inch guns in the hull embrasures were unprotected. The sides of the conning tower were 9 inches thick while the armor deck in the central citadel was 2 inches thick. Outside the area covered by the belt armor, the flat portion of the deck was 2.5 inches (64 mm) thick, while the sloped portion was 3 inches (76 mm) thick.[13]" - number of conversions missing here
    • See above.
  • "Between them, the sisters lost two men killed and seven wounded" - lost killed or lost wounded don't seem grammatically correct; maybe "had two men killed and seven wounded"? Not sure about this one, but the current way doesn't seem grammatical either
  • Some of the proper names throughout the article need NBSPs.

Weak oppose The prose needs some tightening before it meets criterion 1a. Not far from the standard, though. ceranthor 00:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you added commas in sentences with conjoined independent clauses like: The squadron was spotted relatively quickly, and the Japanese main fleet intercepted the Russians in the early afternoon.? They are not grammatical and strike me as redundant to the conjunction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How are they not grammatical, exactly? Two independent clauses with a conjunction between them should have a comma before the conjunction. The ones I corrected were fused sentences without punctuation between independent clauses. ceranthor 12:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite a source? Because that's not any grammar that I was taught.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Here's the GrammarBook guide (see rule 3b) by Jane Straus. Likewise, HyperGrammar at the University of Ottawa, under rule 1 for commas, states: Use a comma before a co-ordinating conjunction that joins independent clauses (unless the independent clauses are very short): I wrapped the fresh fish in three layers of newspaper, but my van still smelled like trout for the next week. (commas with two independent clauses) She invited him to her party and he accepted. (comma unnecessary with short clauses) FWIW, it looks like grammar.com also agrees: see [2]. I've always been taught this method. ceranthor 17:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not claiming to be a total expert when it comes to punctuation, but I have always been taught this method. @Tony1: Sorry to bother you, but do you think you could weigh in here? I could very well be in the wrong, and I don't intend to stir up any trouble over comma usage. ceranthor 17:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These so-called grammar guides often paint the picture simplistically. You need to weigh up several issues when deciding on whether to insert a comma into the grey area (i.e. positions in the text that are neither mandatory nor ruled out for commas). Among these issues are how long the sentence is, how many existing commas there are, whether meaning is affected by the presence/absence of a comma, whether the rhythm is improved. Sometimes the decision could go either way. But here, I'd definitely add a comma. The second sentence of the lead is one that could go either way: "They were transferred to the Pacific Squadron shortly after their completion in 1899–1900 and were based at Port Arthur before the start of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905."I'd be inclined to leave it as Stormvogel has it, without. Flows better, and the year range offers a natural break. Tony (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, Sturm asked about this on my talk page, and I handed it off at WT:Main_Page/Errors#Comma before "and". - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the conversation about commas and compound sentences, I responded to three concerns I think are still lingering. Otherwise, I'm happy with the changes, and I struck my weak oppose. ceranthor 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing about the commas is going to be hard for me to wrap my head around as I was taught a simpler grammar many, many moons ago and it's never come up before in any of my reviews. I'll take a hard look at most of Ceranthor's additional commas and see which ones should be restored in a few minutes. I've responded to all the rest of his comments though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Satisfied that my comments have now been addressed for the most part. ceranthor 15:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

[edit]

Support for 1a: this is the best-written milhist FAC I've looked at over the past weeks. I looked only down to "Armament", and may get a chance to read further.

  • "participated" twice in two sentences. Perhaps second one "took part in"? And there's another one 10 seconds later. "was involved in", but just changing the middle one might be enough.
    • Good idea.
  • "she ... her ... she". Why not use the name, Tango, for the last instance—by that time readers need to be reminded ... lots of names intercede since your only naming of the ship.
    • Done.
  • "Tsar Alexander III's ambitious building programme of 1882 called for the construction of 16 battleships in 20 years for the Baltic Fleet." My editor would take out the first "the". He's taught me to ration it in such circumstances; I balked initially, but he's won me over from my previous hard-line formula.
    • Dropped.
  • I tripped over this list: "The Petropavlovsk-class ships were designed as first-class battleships to meet his requirement for a heavily armored ship that displaced 10,500 long tons (10,700 t), had a speed of 17 knots (31 km/h; 20 mph), a maximum draught of 26 feet (7.9 m) and a range of 3,750 nautical miles (6,940 km; 4,320 mi) with good seakeeping qualities." Problem is that on the higher grammatical rank, you have two verbs (i.e. two propositions): "displaced" and "had". Try: "(10,700 t) and had a speed of 17 knots (31 km/h; 20 mph), a maximum draught of ...".
    • OK
  • I think a comma before "in which" would be better: "Based on experience with Imperator Aleksandr II in which the casemate-mounted secondary armament could ...".
    • Done.
  • "The design was intended to have a maximum speed of 17 knots using forced draft"—Designs don't have a speed, do they? "Though designed for a maximum speed of 17 knots using forced draft, model testing ..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's one of those murky questions as ship designs often have a speed specified as that's a key parameter when designing a ship. I hope you get a chance to look over the rest of the article, but I've addressed these comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

[edit]

Greetings Sturm I'm happy to see a new page, which you are working on. Personaly I did not saw that many issues in the page but there are some let's start.

  • Can you explain me why there are two kinda "Petropavlovsk class" one called Petropavlovsk class and other called Petropavlovsk-class?
    • The hyphenated form is a compound adjective and always precedes a noun like ship or battleship. Without the hyphen, "class" is the noun, so it just has a single adjective before it.
  • I see and what about the Petropavlovsk class? Shouldn't it be Petropavlovsk-class at the start? 'Cause I just realised there are dozens and dozens articles who use the dash between the name of the class and the word class itself I'll give you some examples like the "Kearsarge-class battleship" who use "Kearsarge-class battleship" at the start, the "Braunschweig-class battleship" which use "Braunschweig-class battleship", same goes with the "Lexington-class battlecruiser" who use "Lexington-class battlecruiser". However in my analyse there are some other articles who do not use the dash between the name of the class and the word class itself like "Illinois-class battleship" who use "Illinois class" or the page "Bismarck-class battleship" who use "Bismarck class". Is there a good reason why we don't use the dash between the name of the class and the word class itself? I mean there should be one, because they're the names of the ships right? or is this a multiple articles issue? If the article's title is the right name and correct, then we've to use it right? CPA-5 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I see Britch millimetre and centimetre like in.
  • "All of the 47- and 37-millimetre guns"
  • "four 47- and twenty-six 37-millimetre guns"
  • "lost one 47- and twenty-six 37-millimetre guns."
  • "by 28-centimetre (11 in) shells"
  • Note 1 say "Sevastopol carried only ten 47-millimetre guns."

I know this are not many but I hope this would help you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi Sturm, if you can address CPA's comments and get a source review I think we'd be about done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

The sources used are all reliable and of high quality, mostly by authors commonly used on FAs regarding naval subjects such as Friedman and Preston. The article leans heavily on McLaughlin, who is published by Naval Institute Press, a highly reputable publisher on naval matters. Partial spotcheck of fns 13 and 23, rest AGF due to inaccessibility online. Formatting also good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking this so quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Petropavlovsk-class_battleship/archive1&oldid=864082158"