Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Retvizan/archive1

Russian battleship Retvizan

Russian battleship Retvizan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Retvizan/archive1

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The Russian battleship Retvizan was ordered from an American shipyard because Russian ones were already at full capacity building ships for Tsar Nicholas II's naval expansion program to defend his recently acquired territory in northern China. Damaged several times during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–045, she was sunk when the Imperial Japanese Army besieged Port Arthur. The ship was salvaged by the Imperial Japanese Navy and repaired for service with the name Hizen. She served in minor roles during World War I and was sunk as a target in 1924. The article had a MilHist A-class review last month and I've tweaked it a bit recently to bring it fully up to speed. I'd be astonished if I've caught everything, so I welcome comments from reviewers who can point out things that need to be better explained or rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comments - I reviewed this article at the ACR and have a few more observations:
  • Would it be worthwhile to redlink the auxiliary cruisers Cramp & Sons built? If it's not likely that articles on them will ever be written, don't bother.
    • Since somebody's already made an article on one of them, I might as well redlink them all.
  • Link "watertight" -> watertight compartment
  • In the Port Arthur section, it might be confusing for the reader to see that the Russians were moored in the outer harbor and then to see that after the torpedo hit, Retvizan "head[ed] for the harbor" - they might say to themselves "weren't they already in the harbor?" It might be better to clarify that she was making for the inner harbor. Or call the outer harbor the roadstead instead.
    • I went with inner/outer harbor as more familiar to people than roadstead.
      • Fair enough.
  • I think it would be good to mention the competing Russian and Japanese interests in Manchuria and Korea in the run-up to the war - right now, it jumps from the arrival of the Russian squadron in 1903 to tensions on the eve of war, with no explanation of how we got there. It should probably mention their competing interests, Russia's leading role in the Triple Intervention, etc., if only briefly, so that the reader doesn't have to go clicking around to figure out what was going on. Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • How does the new paragraph work? Thanks for the comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Much better, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some discrepancies between infobox and article - for example, the date she was struck. Other details, such as complement, are unsourced
• Check alphabetization of References
• Location for Forczyk? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • All fixed. Thanks for the eagle eyes, Nikki--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - some significant copyediting may be needed. I've made it through the first two sections. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you be a little more specific?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Support from John

Are we in American or British English here? The article seems to have been started in the latter then changed to the former. Why would that be? --John (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it appears the change happened a bit earlier, with this edit. When Sturmvogel got to the article, it was a mix of British and American English. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right, good catch. Per WP:RETAIN unless there is good reason to change it it should stay in Br Eng. Is there? --John (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

As I think I've said before, if it's in a mix of the two then I pick which ever one I feel like writing in, barring strong national ties; I don't go back and research what the article was started in. Which is often, especially for stubs, only a couple of words in the infobox. I see no need to change things now, but if someone wishes to do so, I have no objection.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. It is one of the things I look for in an article under review, as these things can creep and they are not supposed to. It looks pretty good apart from this, and I will support shortly, once a couple of further minor items are fixed. --John (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

From the above, you seem OK with my use of AmEng, but you dropped a use BritEng tag on the article. Kind of a mixed message, don't you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. RETAIN applies here so we have to keep UK English, unless there is good reason to change it. --John (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not sure that this is a battle that really needs to be fought (absent of any actual complaints... no offense intended, John, as you know I respect you and your work), can this be quickly solved with a talk page discussion as prescribed at WP:RETAIN? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Question On a similar matter, why do we have the imperial units first, rather than metric? Weren't Russia and Japan metric nations in this era? --John (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Russia used English measurements until the revolution, aside from imported French guns. The IJN was English as well until about 1920 or so when they revised their nomenclature.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that is fascinating. It's looking good now, and I will just need one more look before I support. --John (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I now support; thank you for indulging my questions and my copyedits, and congratulations on a fine article. --John (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time and effort to improve the article. Much appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Support good work. A few suggestions.

Background

• a mention of the location of the Cramp shipyards might be welcome.

• Done.

Design etc.

• "The new ship had four fewer 6-inch (152 mm) guns …" as Potemkin"? Ditto for the comparisons on the Maine class battleships.

• Is this really ambiguous given that the comparison ships are mentioned in the previous sentences?

• "two second-class torpedo boats equipped with a single torpedo tube " I'd toss an "each" before "equipped"

• Good idea.

Battle of Port Arthur

• A few sentences about how the war came to be might be good before discussing the battle.

• Done, although the wording might need to be tweaked a bit.

Battle of the Yellow Sea

• "over two hours later" than what?
• The sinking comes rather abruptly. Can a sentence or two be added about the siege for the sake of context?

Excellent as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking this over. See if the changes adequately respond to your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Retvizan_Brassey's1915_corrected.png needs US PD tag
  • Done.
• File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_Marineschepen_in_de_haven_van_Sabang_op_het_eiland_We_TMnr_60011323.jpg: was the listed author working for the museum, or is this PD for another reason? If the latter, the CC license should be supplemented with an appropriate PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The photographer seems to have been independent, but he died in 1922. I don't know how the Tropenmuseum obtained the rights to his photos, if any, but it's irrelevant except in countries with life + 100 years or more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)