Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of Russia/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:59, 17 July 2010 [1].

List of battlecruisers of Russia

Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of Russia/archive1

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it passed a MilHist ACR and I feel it meets all the criteria for a featured list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

is there any template that you can add to the bottom of the List that deals with the military of Russia or is there none in existence?--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 19:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added templates for Russian ship classes of WWI and WWII.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, any reason that there are only three citations that link to an aouthor other than McLaughlin? Surely you can just use the other guys a bit more than three times in the whole text?--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 19:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- McLaughlin, in three different articles or books, provides the most in depth coverage of the three designs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer and per my comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battlecruisers of Russia. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking good overall. A few points:

Since the technical data are the same for each ship in each class, would it make sense to unite the cells using |colspan=| or to move the technical data to the text?
- Using the colspan attribute would be a good idea; I should of thought of it already as I often use it in my HTML tables.<chagrined>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rowspan actually, my error. Ucucha 17:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Either way I knew what you meant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the inclusion of three non-free images will probably give some NFCC enthusiasts chuckles. The FUR for File:Kronshtadt3.jpg at least needs to be improved ("Replacable: Just like any other drawing" won't do), perhaps following the more NFCC-compliant one for File:Stalingrad2vew.jpg. As for File:IzmailConstruction.jpg, hasn't it been published before 1923? In that case, it would be PD in the U.S.

Ucucha 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- IIRC, the original upload on Commons didn't specify source so it was impossible to prove that it was published in the US before '23 even though the photos date to about 1915. Don't get me started on the NFCC requirement on replaceability as any drawing or photo of a real object can be ultimately be replaced; it's merely a question of time and energy, which, IMO, calls into question the whole requirement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it was published anywhere before 1923, it is PD in the United States and can be uploaded to en.wikipedia with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Some images actually cannot be replaced with a free alternative (unless you wait for 70 years after the author's death), like album covers. In this case, the FUR for the Stalingrad image is certainly stronger than the one for the Kronshtadt image. Ucucha 17:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm fairly certain that I know the source for the Kronshtadt image, but I have to wait a bit before I get my photocopies to confirm it. But without a positive source for the Izmail image I can't prove when it was published at all so claiming PD-1923-abroad is unsupportable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I still haven't gotten my photocopies, but I've updated the FUR for the Kronshtadt image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a great list. These military-lists are so well-sourced. I wd normally oppose when using non-free images, but this list does in fact describe the subjects of the images. Sandman888 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"interrupted the construction of the Borodino-class" the lead makes it unclear as to who was developing this class of battlecruiser.
- Clarified.
"capable of dealing with enemy cruisers" you could be clearer here as to what "dealing with" means.
- Done
"but the design began to grow" be precise, do you mean the ship design became bigger? Or just the design took longer, was more expensive etc?
- Clarified.
" it was modified to allow for combat with German pocket battleships and later the Scharnhorst-class battleships on even terms" perhaps it's just me but this doesn't seem to read correctly.
- I'm not sure what you're getting at.
  - How does this work? "... it was modified to allow for combat with German pocket battleships on even terms, and later modified to gain parity with the Scharnhorst-class battleships."
"The Navy revived its requirement..." perhaps reiterate which Navy.
- Not necessary given the title, etc.
  - All things considered, I'm with SV on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick check, is canceled preferred over cancelled for USEng?
- Beats me, my dictionary makes no distinction.
Stay consistent with millimetre vs millimeter.
- Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Refixed :) - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Oops ... the last edit to the article was 6 days ago, so my guess is you made an edit but it didn't save, SV. I'll do some of these. I personally always use "cancelled" (34M ghits) over "canceled" (16M ghits) on Wikipedia, since they're used with equal frequency in the U.S., but AFAIK "canceled" is wrong everywhere outside the U.S. - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did indeed forget to save it. <blush>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good link for "Russian Naval General Staff" or similar for non-experts?
- I might be able to put something together.
  - Done
Last two paras of the lead are completely unreferenced.
- They're fully covered in the relevant articles. Only controversial statements are referenced in the lead.
  - I plead ignorance on what's customary at FCL. It would be okay at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, you have some references in there. The point is that I guess most readers assume that if no references exist in the lead then the information will all be subsequently referenced in the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh I misunderstood ... absolutely, anything in the lead that needs referencing needs to be referenced somewhere in the article. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, reviewed at ACR... an excellent list IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, only issue I found was a lacking comma in one spot. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One comment: Which of McLaughlin's books does ref 5 come from? Courcelles (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Great list. Courcelles (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pending the resolution of Courcelles's question of course. The prose looks good, FU-images look fine, sourcing looks good as well. Excellent work on this list. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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