Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Pobeda

Add links
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.

Article promoted MilHistBot (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian battleship Pobeda[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


Pobeda was one of five Russian pre-dreadnought battleships captured during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05. She participated in all of the major naval battles of the war and was eventually sunk by Japanese artillery during the Siege of Port Arthur. After the war, she was refloated by the Japanese and incorporated into their navy after three years of repair. She was not very active in Japanese service, serving mostly in training roles, but her most significant service was during the Battle of Tsingtao during World War I and the Japanese besieged the German-held Chinese port. She was disarmed during the early 1920s in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty and may have been broken up around the same time, although some sources suggest that she was not scrapped until the end of World War II. This article is bound for FAC and I trust that reviewers will point out any infelicities in the text or failures to adequately explain jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Pobeda was feet 5 inches (132.4 m) long overall, had a beam of feet 6 inches (21.79 m) and a draft of feet 3 inches (8.0 m).": This expands to: "Pobeda was feet 5 inches (132.4 m) long overall, Pobeda had a beam of feet 6 inches (21.79 m) and Pobeda a draft of feet 3 inches (8.0 m)." - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that I need a verb for the third clause?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If "Pobeda was feet 5 inches (132.4 m) long overall, with a beam of feet 6 inches (21.79 m) and a draft of feet 3 inches (8.0 m)." works for you, go with that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the flags had to be hung from the bridge railings without because": Does "without" mean "outside" here?
  • "This proved to be to little avail": I don't follow.
  • I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I just took a quick look. A couple of observations:

  • this seems inconsistent - in the infobox: "Launched 10 May 1900" v. in the text "The ship was launched 23 May 1900"
  • in the infobox "Draft 26ft" v. in the text "draft of 26 feet 3 inches"
  • in the infoxbox "Belt: 7-9 inches" v. "waterline armor belt consisted of Krupp cemented armor and was 4-9 inches". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a reminder, my comments above have not yet been addressed. As of tomorrow I will be offline for about three weeks. If these issues are resolved while I'm away, I'm more than happy for the article to be promoted. Overall, I believe it meets the A-class criteria, there are just a couple of minor inconsistencies to deal with. Good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- just a placeholder, will aim to review this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Completed my usual copyedit so generally happy with prose but I wonder if the average punter knows what a second-class battleship is, because frankly I don't, and I couldn't see a direct link...
  • Structure and level of detail seem fine.
  • Reference formatting/reliability look okay, but Chesneau doesn't seem to be cited anywhere.
  • No issues I could see with image licensing.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the points above have been actioned so happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • I reviewed for GA but quite a bit of development has occurred since then so will go through it again.
    • 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] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
    • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd).
    • Captions look fine (no actions req'd).
    • A few duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
      • flagship
      • Rear Admiral
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd)
    • "On the night of 8/9 February 1904, the IJN...", abbreviation "IJN" needs to be introduced.
    • This sentence has a few issues for me: "She was refloated by Japanese engineers on 17 October 1905, and was classified as a 1st-class battleship and renamed as Suwo on 25 October,[18] after the eponymous ancient province.[19]" Firstly as it is the first sentence in a new section I think it probably best to introduce the subject (i.e. Pobeda), it might be unclear to some why it was refloated (i.e. to be salvaged / pressed into service) whilst it seems to run on a bit. Consider splitting a rewording a little. Try something like: "Pobeda was refloated by Japanese engineers on 17 October 1905 and pressed into service. Classified as a 1st-class battleship, she was renamed as Suwo on 25 October, after the eponymous ancient province."
    • Otherwise good. Anotherclown (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reworded the sentence, but the lede already tells the reader that she was placed into service by the IJN so I don't really think that it's necessary to do so again. I think that I've resolved everything else that y'all pointed out. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - just a few things:

  • Check your spellings, it looks like AmEng but I spotted a "defences"
    • Good catch.
  • File:Peresvet1901.jpg - is there a date of publication? We'd need that to know how exactly it's PD in the US.
    • I have no idea if it was ever published in the US.
  • File:Pobeda1904Port-Artur.jpg - needs a US PD tag
    • Done.
  • "Although she was struck by eleven" - this sounds like you're still talking about Peresvet here.
    • Good catch.
  • If Shinzo's book is considered authoritative, why is it not considered the default? Which is to say, why is the account of Jentschura et. al. privileged? Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2014 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Russian_battleship_Pobeda&oldid=618651109"