Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Oslyabya/archive1

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2015 [1].

---

Russian battleship Oslyabya

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) & Buggie111 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oslyabya had a very brief career before she became the first ship sunk during the Battle of Tsushima in 1905. She took about eight years to build and had only about two years of service before she was sunk. The ship was one of three Russian second-class battleships built to support their strategy of commerce raiding if war had broken out against the British. While not intended to stand in the line of battle, the Russians had no choice to use them that way once the Russo-Japanese War began. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous phrasings and any jargon that needs to be explained. The article had a MilHist A-class review, that included an image review, several months ago and should be in pretty good shape, but y'all know how that goes. This is a joint nomination between Buggie111 and myself. He's in Russia, last I had contact with him, but hopefully he'll be able to comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Well written. I only have a couple of things.

Career

• " at the cost of 11,340,000 rubles. " I would say "at a cost ..."
• "after the Russo-Japanese War began three days earlier." hm. Maybe "following the start of the Russo-Japanese War three days previously"--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Excellent suggestions both. Thanks for reviewing this so quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed the article at the Milhist ACR and my concerns were addressed there. Great work, as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "This epic 18,000-mile (29,000 km) journey was the longest voyage of a coal-powered battleship fleet in history.": Needs attribution per WP:INTEXT.
  • Um, howzabout the the cite immediately following the quote?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Per INTEXT, "in addition to an inline citation after the sentence". I don't write this stuff, I just quote it :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry for snapping, done, although I don't really think that it adds much in this case.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Draft differs between infobox and text - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Good catch; typo in the template.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Succinct composition and concise writing style make this article accessible to the reader. High quality article about a ship whose crew had an unfortunate ending, at least half of them at least. — Cirt (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.