Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battlecruisers of Russia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Promoted EyeSerenetalk 10:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I intend to send this to FLC and I think that an ACR is a worthwhile step to get into shape.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work so far. Am not entirely sure how the A-class criteria apply to lists, but here goes... The Land (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A1. I think a few citations in the prose section on the Borodinos are necessary as there aren't any at the moment. Also see below.
- Good catch, that's what I get for replacing the former text wholesale. I'll add some shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A2. Largely there, but a few comments on details :-
- First and second sentence of lead. What is the source for the first sentence about how the Russians intended, in 1905, to use their armoured cruisers. Also I am not sure that the citation to Roberts justifies the statement "This concept was very different from the primary roles for the battlecruiser envisioned by the British Royal Navy and the Imperial German High Seas Fleet". Reading Roberts' list of roles for the battlecruiser it gives the impression that using speed to engage the head of the line was indeed a function of the battlecruisers 'so long as the enemy battleships were engaged'. So, while I can see the motivation behind what the article says currently, I don't think it's quite right. And also I think that this particular point might better belong in the section in the Borodinos, than at the very start of the article.
- While Roberts may list that as one of the BC's roles, the Brits never seemed to think of using them that way. If they had then they would never have built the Queen Elizabeths, which were designed specifically for that role. I think that Roberts was being comprehensive and listing the Russian doctrine in with all the others. I need to think on your other points.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's not quite clear what Roberts is talking about - but since he scarcely mentions the Russian navy in his book at all, it's unlikely that he is encompassing Russian sources. So a different citation needs to be provided for the sentence starting "this concept..." - though I'm sceptical that the Russian concept of employment was actually that different from the British/German one. The Land (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This area is my only remaining concern with the article. The Land (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll stand by the statement that the Russians were primarily concerned engaging the van with all other roles secondary, unlike the Germans and Brits who viewed that role as secondary. Remember that the Borodinos actually had _more_ armor than did the Gangut class dreadnoughts; armor that they'd need to survive against enemy dreadnoughts in the van, unlike the Brits who preferred only to do that if the enemy dreadnought was otherwise engaged.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may well be right - but I still think this statement needs sourcing, and I don't see anything in Roberts Battlecruisers to support it. There must, somewhere, be an appropriate source for it....The Land (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sourced already from McLaughlin. I just had to move the cite one sentence over, which is why you probably didn't notice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may well be right - but I still think this statement needs sourcing, and I don't see anything in Roberts Battlecruisers to support it. There must, somewhere, be an appropriate source for it....The Land (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll stand by the statement that the Russians were primarily concerned engaging the van with all other roles secondary, unlike the Germans and Brits who viewed that role as secondary. Remember that the Borodinos actually had _more_ armor than did the Gangut class dreadnoughts; armor that they'd need to survive against enemy dreadnoughts in the van, unlike the Brits who preferred only to do that if the enemy dreadnought was otherwise engaged.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This area is my only remaining concern with the article. The Land (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's not quite clear what Roberts is talking about - but since he scarcely mentions the Russian navy in his book at all, it's unlikely that he is encompassing Russian sources. So a different citation needs to be provided for the sentence starting "this concept..." - though I'm sceptical that the Russian concept of employment was actually that different from the British/German one. The Land (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While Roberts may list that as one of the BC's roles, the Brits never seemed to think of using them that way. If they had then they would never have built the Queen Elizabeths, which were designed specifically for that role. I think that Roberts was being comprehensive and listing the Russian doctrine in with all the others. I need to think on your other points.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer to see some armour statistics quoted in the summary tables.
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the key, you say "displacement" is "full combat load". This isn't one of the standard measures of displacement for warships, which are "design" displacement (ie. a configuration selected by the designers to yield the design draft), "deep" or "full" displacement (all stores, crew, fuel, ammunition feedwater), and, after 1922, "standard" displacement (no fuel or feedwater but all ammunition). Breyer in Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World lists 32,500t as the design displacement for the Borodinos. The displacement figure used probably needs to be standardised, rechecked, and corrected if necessary.
- Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First and second sentence of lead. What is the source for the first sentence about how the Russians intended, in 1905, to use their armoured cruisers. Also I am not sure that the citation to Roberts justifies the statement "This concept was very different from the primary roles for the battlecruiser envisioned by the British Royal Navy and the Imperial German High Seas Fleet". Reading Roberts' list of roles for the battlecruiser it gives the impression that using speed to engage the head of the line was indeed a function of the battlecruisers 'so long as the enemy battleships were engaged'. So, while I can see the motivation behind what the article says currently, I don't think it's quite right. And also I think that this particular point might better belong in the section in the Borodinos, than at the very start of the article.
- A3 Yes, particularly once the earlier comments about the lead are dealt with.
- A4 Yes
- A5 A few issues which probably aren't a bar to A-class but will inevitably be raised at FAC:
- File:IzmailConstruction.jpg in the lead - the source doesn't link to the correct image. Copyright information is missing. I think that Russia/Soviet Union have usually worked on a 50-year rule after the death of the artist; if the artist was unknown, then it is probably reasonable to suppose they died before 1960 since the photo dates from 1915. However, you need to check this, and more source information would be very desirable.
- Fixed the link. The ultimate source is a copy-vio scan of a Russian magazine that I don't intend to link to. I strongly suspect that the original picture is out of copyright because of its age, but have no way to prove it.
- What evidence is there that the image is what it claims to be? Wouldn't it be clearer to link to [1]? The Land (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've always assumed that in the wonderful world of fair-use that it was best to link exactly to the image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What evidence is there that the image is what it claims to be? Wouldn't it be clearer to link to [1]? The Land (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the link. The ultimate source is a copy-vio scan of a Russian magazine that I don't intend to link to. I strongly suspect that the original picture is out of copyright because of its age, but have no way to prove it.
- File:Kronshtadt3.jpg The source link provided doesn't work. This kind of image needs to be traced to a reliable source; if it's speculative, it needs to be marked as such. If it's speculative, then it probably also doesn't count as 'fair use'.
- I'm fairly certain that this matches the drawing in the McLaughlin article, although I don't have it to hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Stalingrad2vew.jpg Was Roberts the originator of this image, or was he reproducing some original technical plans? If the latter, they may be out of copyright. If the former, then I think strictly speaking this isn't a "fair use", and a free alternative needs to be created by someone re-drawing it (!!!)
- Roberts?!! The source is given and Roberts has nothing to do with it. I'll use the image until somebody actually redraws it for lack of anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the first description box says, Author: John Roberts ? The Land (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooops, quite right; I wasn't looking at the first box. Roberts is well known as a nautical draughtsman; he may have based it on plans, but I don't think that that would make it copyright-free.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the first description box says, Author: John Roberts ? The Land (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Roberts?!! The source is given and Roberts has nothing to do with it. I'll use the image until somebody actually redraws it for lack of anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:IzmailConstruction.jpg in the lead - the source doesn't link to the correct image. Copyright information is missing. I think that Russia/Soviet Union have usually worked on a 50-year rule after the death of the artist; if the artist was unknown, then it is probably reasonable to suppose they died before 1960 since the photo dates from 1915. However, you need to check this, and more source information would be very desirable.
- A1. I think a few citations in the prose section on the Borodinos are necessary as there aren't any at the moment. Also see below.
Is "fate" an appropriate encyclopedic word, as opposed to "status" YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In AmEng it doesn't have any odd connotations, but if it sounds wrong to Indian or British or any other ears, I don't mind if you change it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fate" is the word I would use in British English. "Status" sounds a little forced. The Land (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd only use status if any ships survived today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fate" is the word I would use in British English. "Status" sounds a little forced. The Land (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
- There are no dab links, all external links check out and the citation checking tool reveals no errors (no action required); and
- I have made a number of very minor tweaks, please confirm if you're happy with these changes and revert if you're not.
- Overall I can find very little at fault as this is an excellent list IMO, which meets the A class criteria. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Generally looks fine to me, but I have one comment.the page number format is inconsistent in the Citations. For instance you have in # 25 "pp. 119-120", but in # 20 you have "pp. 110-11" (where you mean 110-111). These should be consistent, and to be honest, I think it would be best if you use the full number. The example in # 11 just doesn't look right IMO: "pp. 100-05".AustralianRupert (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Standardized.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: my concern has been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Comments above have been dealt with. The Land (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.