Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1894)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2018 [1].

Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1894)

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petropavlovsk spent more time under construction than she did in service as she was sunk early in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05 after striking a mine. While her loss certainly weakened the Russian position in the Far East, the biggest impact was the death of the Russian squadron commander, the aggressive and charismatic Vice Admiral Stepan Makarov. The article just completed a MilHist ACR and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose and any jargon that needs linking or explaining and look forward to working with reviewers who find any such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support. I've read the article twice and found nothing to prevent supporting. Well-written and comprehensive. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments from Usernameunique

edit

Lead

  • Feels a little bit short in general, and what you just said above introducing this article ("While her loss certainly weakened the Russian position in the Far East, the biggest impact was the death of the Russian squadron commander, the aggressive and charismatic Vice Admiral Stepan Makarov.") should be included.
  • "She participated in suppression". Do you mean the suppression?
    • Indeed.
  • "near Port Arthur." For those that don't know where Port Arthur is/was (me included), can you add a brief clarification (e.g., "Port Arthur, in Northeast China.").
    • Good idea.
  • "Casualties numbered 27 officers and 652 men". So the officers weren't men?

Design and description

  • "12-inch guns and the 8-inch guns were replaced". Should probably be a comma after "12-inch guns".
    • I really don't see the point of the comma.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be to immediately indicate that "12-inch guns and the 8-inch guns" isn't what was was made to be more powerful and higher-velocity; otherwise you have to get to the words "were replaced" to get clued in to the fact that something different happened to the 8-inch guns. Minor point, though.
  • "Poltava was almost 400 long tons (410 t) overweight". This is the first time you've mentioned Poltava, yet you only imply that she's one of the Petropavlovsk-class ships. Although you said in the lead that there were three ships in the class, this should also be in the body of the article. I'd recommend by leading off with that in "Design and description" and giving their names up front.
    • Sorry, that was a copy-paste error.
      • You still state that Petropavlovsk was one of three ships in the lead, but not in the body.
  • "British firm of Hawthorn Leslie". Is the "of" necessary?
    • Nope.
  • "twin-gun turrets". Is the hyphen necessary?
    • Yep, compound adjective.
  • "the actual rate of fire was half that." I think you mean to say that it was actually 1 round/45 seconds, but this could technically also mean .5 rounds/90 seconds.
    • Remember that rate of fire is actually a fraction so it means the latter or 1/180 seconds.
      • I guess that makes sense, but it's still confusing because "one round every 90 seconds" isn't really in fraction form. I'd still consider to make it clear (n.b. as per my previous comment I thought it was the opposite), but it's a minor point.
        • Think of it in this way: If I do something half as fast, it takes twice as long.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then say "the actual rate of fire was half as fast", not "half that". Saying "half that" means you're dividing an unspecified something in two, while saying "half that" means you're dividing speed in two.
  • "quick-firing (QF) guns." I'm not sure the parenthetical abbreviation is worth it, considering you only use it once more in the article, and it contributes to a bit of a sea of blue.

Construction

  • "Delayed ... the ship was laid down on 19 May 1892". The delay lacks context unless you add when the ship was ordered (perhaps in the preceding section).
    • Rephrased
  • "[She was] launched on 9 November 1894. Her trials lasted from 1898 to 1899". What did she do from 1894 to 1898?
    • Covered in the above rephrasing.
      • Where? I see what happened before 1892 now, but not what happened from 1894 to 1898.
  • "raised his flag on Petropavlovsk." What does this mean? Does it mean that he personally resided on the ship?
    • It's another way of saying that Petropavlovsk became his flagship.
  • In general, it's a little unclear what the relationship between Skrydlov and Stark was. Was Skrydlov in command of the squadron before Stark?
    • How does it read now?
      • Looks good.

Battle of Port Arthur

  • "the Russian failure to withdraw its troops". I think this should be "Russia's failure to withdraw its troops". Also, this sentence (about activities in 1903) should perhaps go after the discussion of what happened in 1901.
  • "The final straws were ... in Korea." This is a long and somewhat awkward sentence. It would be better with the word "the" between "were" and "news", and with a comma following "in northern Korea".
  • "These caused the Japanese government". How about "These actions caused", because otherwise you're essentially saying "These straws caused", which sounds odd.
    • I adopted all of your suggestions other than the comma, which looks very odd to me in front of "and"
  • "The Pacific Squadron began mooring". Not sure the link to Wiktionary is worth it.
  • "The Pacific Squadron began mooring in the outer harbor at night as tensions with Japan increased, in order". How about "As tensions with Japan increased, the Pacific Squadron began mooring in the outer harbor at night in order".

Sinking

  • Generally, I think you need to add some of the significance of the sinking. You alluded to here—saying the loss of Makarov was a big deal—but it's nowhere in the article. The Japanese also seem to have thought it was a big deal, considering the caption on the illustration, and the fact that several contemporary depictions of it were made.
  • How about a bigger picture? See here or here or here.
    • Upgraded the existing image.
  • "taking 27 officers and 652 men, including Makarov and the war artist Vasily Vereshchagin, with her." How about "taking with her..." Also, what about some background on why Vereshchagin was on the ship?
    • I wish I knew; that bit was added by a Russian-reading editor, not me.
  • "Seven officers and 73 men were rescued." Here and above, same point about officers also being men.
    • Ironically, that's straight from my source.
  • "Japanese divers identified his remains inside the wreck of Petropavlovsk". What were Japanese divers doing down there, and why not Russian divers? Does the source say where in the ship his remains were found?

Overall

  • Looks pretty good, and most of the points above are fairly minor and discretionary. The main things are 1) the short lead, 2) the lack of discussion of the significance of the sinking (and Makarov's death), and to a lesser extent 3) the lack of a sentence giving the names of the other ships in the class. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your thorough review. I don't think that the names of the other ships in the class is really necessary as I've corrected the mistake that led to one of them being mentioned without an explanation. Not sure that I can do much with the short lede as adding technical details there would only be redundant to the description and not a summary. Still thinking about adding something on the significance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

It has become more or less standard for ISBNs in featured articles to be rendered in consistent 13-digit form. Thus, Corbett= 978-1-55750-129-5; Kowner= 978-0-8108-4927-3; Silverstone= 978-0-88254-979-8; Westwood= 978-0-88706-191-2. Otherwise, sources are in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking them up for me, but I'll stick the original ISBNs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Parsecboy

edit

Support from PM

edit

I reviewed this in detail when it recently went through Milhist A-Class review, and have looked over the changes made since. I believe it meets the FA criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges

edit

Support, I was a part of the A-Class review, and can find no additional problems. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The ed17

edit

Made a few copyedits. Great job! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Russian_battleship_Petropavlovsk_(1894)/archive1&oldid=820671015"