Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Rostislav

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 -- Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russian battleship Rostislav

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Rostislav/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it's ready for review. This is a collaboration between myself and East of Borschov.-- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good. I made a small copyedit, but under "Construction" there is a mention of a "commission" which apparently reported on the suitability of the vessel. Did I miss being introduced to this earlier? Rumiton (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I've deleted that mention as unnecessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiton: thanks for saying it looks good, I value your copyeditor's eye. Several of us have worked on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
- One question for Rumiton or Sturm: Rumiton changed "did nothing to alert the other ships" to "did not alert the other ships". I don't think they're equivalent, and the first seems stronger, although it raise the question of how many different ways they could alert the other ships. Do you have a preference, Sturm? - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Nikolaev Admiralty": the linked page doesn't contain the word "admiralty", so people following the link to find out what "Nikolaev Admiralty" means are going to be disappointed. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified that it means the shipyard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Alexander's guests, parties and diplomatic visits to Istanbul regularly interfered with the crew's duties, but he limited such occasions to a reasonable minimum": I don't understand. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleaned up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Finished my copyediting; See WP:MHCL#commas. ~~Except for my last point above,~~ you're good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~: I made a couple of fixes, and wish to clear up a couple of points:

"desired displacement target of" the template which follows seems to be broken, not accepting 5digit numbers,, and I can't seem to fix it
- Works just fine. What do you want to change it to?
  - Reads as "24,000 long tons (24,000 t)", which does not seem correct.D2306 (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a rounding error, but I can change that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If possible, as all the other displacements have the conversion with a smaller visible error.D2306 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Great, now fixed.
"Chikhachov, appalled by the bureaucratic games of his staff" perhaps change a more neutral way to say this?D2306 (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Simplest to just delete the entire phrase.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...turned the installation of its engines into an engineering nightmare, and the Navy...". Again, perhaps change to something like "made the installation of engines very difficult, to the point that the navy..."D2306 (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"to harass the Reds in Taman", "...to prevent the Reds from breaking out into the Black Sea". Change "Reds" to "Red Army" or "Red Army forces". I am also not sure "out into the Black Sea" is grammatically correct.D2306 (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good suggestions, both.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now supportD2306 (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support~~Comments~~

Minor infobox stuff:
~~Putting the power in the propulsion section would make that look cleaner (no wrapping).~~
- No, it's a separate entry in the infobox for a reason.
~~ihp probably should be converted to metric. Also, maybe a link?~~
- Already converted, but link added.
Shorten vertical triple-expansion steam engines? Your FA article Russian battleship Slava is similar so its probably ok..
~~in the range, maybe remove 'a speed of' (also similar to Slava)~~ Kirk (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Couple other things - it probably needs another image or two based on the length (more of a FA criteria).
  - All of the other images have sourcing issues so I'm not going to use them.
- I watch out for 'firsts' so I noticed ...making Rostislav the first capital ship in the world to use fuel oil., which made me wonder: what was the theory behind having one set of boilers using coal and the other oil? Might be worth another sentence to explain what was going on here; the later version of having boilers use either seems more efficient to me (and obviously this system did not work very well as you discussed later).
  - My google books snippet view allowed me to see McLaughlin on pg. 95 discusses this exact point. Kirk (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done.
- ~~Harvey armor is wikilinked at least 3 times.~~ Kirk (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed.
    - Looks good; switching to support. Kirk (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~: mainly just focusing on presentation and style

CorenSearchBot shows no copyright violation (no action required) [1];
in the Diplomatic incidents section, is there a need for a single sentence paragraph? I think it would be best just to merge the three paragraphs all into one;
- Agreed.
there is some inconsistency in the Notes, for instance "Melnikov, pp. 41 and 42." should probably just be "Melnikov, pp. 41–42.";
- Fixed.
Note # 24, "Prices for Armor Plate" -could publisher and date details be added;
- Done.
I'm a little confused between the Notes and the Footnotes sections. Some of the Footnotes appear to be sentences/commentary that should probably go in the Notes section because they seem to fulfill the same role as Note 1. For instance Footnotes # 3, 6, 23, 41, 46, probably should be "Notes"';
- Agreed.
in the References section, some of the year ranges have endashes and some don't. E.g. Willmott and Shirokorad don't. I'm confused about WP:DASH now (there seems to be a bit of a backlash against it of late), so I will only suggest that the hyphens in the year ranges be changed to endashes. If you don't think its required, that's fine (suggestion only);
- Done.
the template at the bottom of the article might look better collapsed (suggestion only). AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries, all my concerns have been addressed. I've added my support. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. 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.