Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Retvizan

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.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian battleship Retvizan

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

One of the few foreign-built battleships of the Imperial Russian Navy, Retvizan was built in America around the turn of the 20th century. She was sent to the Far East in support of Russia's ambitions there and the Japanese did not take kindly to the increasing Russian threat to their own ambitions and mounted a surprise attack in February 1904. Retvizan was torpedoed during that initial attack, but was repaired and participated in several of the early naval battles of the Russo-Japanese War before being sunk by Japanese land-based artillery during the Siege of Port Arthur. She was raised and repaired for service with the Imperial Japanese Navy. The ship participated in the search for the German East Asia Squadron at the beginning of World War I, but otherwise did little of note during the war. Hizen, as she had been renamed, also supported the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1918. She was disarmed in 1922 to comply with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty and sunk two years later as a target.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~
- "...the Japanese after their victory during the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95 as it was apparent that their ambitions were on a collision course because Russia..." - a collision course with what? As it reads now, the second "their" is parallel to the first, which refers only to the Japanese.
- Any way we can get a higher-quality plan and elevation image? The one from Jane's is pretty rough.
- I think the "Influence" section should be folded into the "Design and description" section - it's only 1 sentence, which is probably too short to sustain a subsection.
- Why do we care what the transliterations for Schensnovich's name are? No other Russian names are transliterated.
- Might be worth noting what country Kaiser Bill ruled.
- Any details on Retvizan's activities in the earlier phases at the Yellow Sea? If not, can a brief generic account of the battle be added? It seems rather abrupt to end the last section with a lead-up to the battle and then to jump to the final phase.
- "Afterwards she and Asama headed south in search of the German squadron" - which one? Spee hasn't been introduced in the text.
Images
- File:Retvizan.jpg - no date/place of publication, how do we know this is PD-US or PD-Russia?
- All other images check out copyright-wise. Parsecboy (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very helpful comments, see how my changes work for you. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - They all look good, but it appears this article is in AmEng, so why did Cousin Nicky "authorise" the program? Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because I swiped the paragraph from an article in BritEng? Thanks for catching that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I figured as much. My concerns have been addressed, so moving to support. Parsecboy (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, in the lead:

"She was sent to search for other German ships after the Americans interned the German ship in November, but did not encounter any." - this seems pretty confusing. Might it be better to specify the ship/squadron to avoid the "German ship" repetition? Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"She was refloated, repaired and joined": nonparallel
- Reworded.
"During the summer, Retvizan landed two 6-inch, two 47-mm and six 37-mm guns reinforce the landward defenses of the port.": ?
"During the battle she lacked [25] She was subsequently": ?
- Two incomplete thoughts that should have been consolidated. Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support
- No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
- External links check out [2] (no action req'd).
- Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
- Image review completed above by another reviewer
- The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd).
- No duplicate link per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
- "Retvizan was torpedoed during the Japanese surprise attack on Port Arthur during the night of 8–9 February 1904...", should be "the night of 8/9 February 1904" per WP:DATEFORMAT
- "...from all of the water she had taken aboard after the torpedo hit...", consider instead: "...from the amount of water she had taken aboard after the torpedo hit..." (suggestion only)
- "...every 80 or 90 seconds...", perhaps "...every 80 to 90 seconds..." would work better? Although current wording is not wrong (suggestion only).
- Otherwise fine. Anotherclown (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both good ideas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.