Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Peresvet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian battleship Peresvet[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


Peresvet was designed to defeat enemy armored cruisers defending convoys of merchant ships, but ended up fighting battleships when she was sent to Port Arthur before the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05. She was badly damaged in the Battle of the Yellow Sea and was scuttled in harbor once the Imperial Japanese Army could bombard it effectively. She was salvaged by the Japanese and placed into service. She was sold back to the Russians during World War I and was in the White Sea when the British decided to intervene in the Russian Civil War in 1919. Although her crew had earlier declared their allegiance to the Bolsheviks, they did nothing to stop the British landings. She was eventually scrapped in 1924, well after the British withdrew from the war. The article passed GAN several years ago, but it's been expanded and extensively rewritten using information from new sources. I expect that infelicities remain and hope to work with reviewers who spot them before I send it up to FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Comments
    • Same issue with Poltava re: the order of the first para of the Port Arthur section.
    • The first para of the Yellow Sea section is a bit long and could probably be split.
    • Retzivan?
    • "Her repairs began on 30 September, although she participated in the review of captured ships on 23 October, and continued until 20 July 1908." - this is a little unclear. I know you mean that repairs continued until 20 July, but the wording is a little funny.
      • See how it reads now.
        • Much better now, thanks.
    • "during the war," - same as in the other review: which war?
      • Specified in the lede, but I've clarified it regardless.
    • "resumed her former name" - you don't resume a name, but you might re-assume one.
      • You say potatoe, I say po-tat-oe.
        • I'm fairly sure that one can only resume action verbs, not abstractions, but it might be best to get the advice of an expert.
          • No, I think that you're probably right now that you've explained your reasoning.
    • Same question on the nav template links. Parsecboy (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what you mean; I've edited the redirect for Sagami to go to the Japanese career section of the Peresvet article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Fair enough.
    • You've got a Harv error with the Westwood citation now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Stupid copy-paste and sfn-using editors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Comments -- as ever, pls let me know if I stuffed anything up with my copyedit; other points:
    • You mention/link Siege of Port Arthur in the lead but not in the main body. IMO should be both or (preferably) neither or only in the main body, reason being that I think it confuses the lead to have both Battle of and Siege of Port Arthur.
      • I've added a new header for the siege and tweaked the wording for the siege as opposed to the battle that should clarify things.
    • "The bombardment, coupled with a direct order from Tsar Nicholas I, forced Vitgeft to make an attempt to reach Vladivostock" -- unsure of what "the bombardment" refers to specifically; was it her shelling Japanese positions around Port Arthur, or the damage she took from the Japanese batteries (however "slight")?
      • Clarified.
    • Aside from the above, pretty happy with prose/detail/structure.
    • Image licensing and source reliability/formatting look okay to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the review and copyedit, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Okay, I can live with those changes -- happy to support, well done as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Support: overall this article looks quite good and I believe it meets the A-class requirements. I have the following observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • seems inconsistent: "draft of 26 feet 3 inches (8.0 m)" (body) v. "Draft: 26 ft (7.925 m)" (infobox)
  • seems inconsistent: "displaced 13,810 long tons (14,030 t)" (body) v "Displacement: 13,320 long tons (13,534 t)" (infobox)
  • seems inconsistent "Peresvet's waterline armor belt consisted of Harvey armor and was 4–9 inches (102–229 mm) thick" (body) v "Belt: 7–9 inches (178–229 mm)" (infobox)
  • seems inconsistent: "Peresvet entered service in August" (body) v "In service: June 1901" (infobox)
  • please check your English language variation. I see "armor" but also "defences";
  • this seems a little awkward:"About 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi) north of the harbor, the ship struck two mines, one forward and the other abreast a boiler room, on 4 January 1917 that had been laid by the submarine SM U-73 and sank after catching fire with the loss of 167 or 116 lives...". Perhaps this might be smoother, "On 4 January 1917, about 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi) north of the harbor, the ship struck two mines that had been laid by the submarine SM U-73. Holed forward and abreast of one of her boiler rooms, the ship sank after catching fire. Losses are reported various as either 167 or 116 lives." AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the eye-eyed review, Rupert, and your suggestion for the last section was right on. I do have a habit of cramming a quart of information into a pint-sized sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

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.