Talk:Brazilian cruiser Bahia
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brazilian cruiser Bahia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Brazilian cruiser Bahia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 21, 2010.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on July 4, 2011, November 21, 2011, July 4, 2013, and July 4, 2015.|
- 1 GA Review
- 2 These "emails with R.B. Haworth" edit summaries
- 3 Image review for FAC
- 4 Remains the biggest accident of Brazilian Navy
- 5 Assessment
- 6 Contradiction
- 7 Absence of guide rails needs explanation
- 8 Modernization and inter-war years -- "embarked"?
- 9 7 mm (0.28 in) Hotchkiss machine gun
- 10 External links modified
- 11 Sunk by an explosion?
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Brazilian cruiser Bahia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
The line The small fleet sailed on 31 July for the British colony of Sierra Leone, utilizing almost nothing that was Brazilian aside from the ships themselves and the men crewing them. could be worded better. I'm assuming it means their provisions were supplied by other countries, but it's pretty vague right now. In the "Modernization" section, you should probably have a note explaining the discrepancy in the years she was modernized. Is this the Madsen machine gun we're talking about? She traveled 101,971 mi (164,106 km) in 357.5 days strikes me as odd; why not just round it up to 358 days?
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a Pass/Fail:
Everything looks pretty solid, just the few minor things I pointed out above. This will also serve as my A-class review for MILHIST; once everything is kosher here, I'll support the article over there. Nice work Ed! Parsecboy (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- All done, though you may want to check my wording on your first point; I'm not happy with the wording (I wasn't before either, but I can't find a better way to present the information). —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- The wording looks better, but I don't think it's 100% quite yet. I might see if I can smooth it out a bit. Also, I think you missed the line about the year discrepancy for modernization. Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
These "emails with R.B. Haworth" edit summaries
Are you sure that your entry on the Brazilian cruiser Bahia has the correct launching date? Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 and the Brazilian Navy's official site have the date as 20 April 1909. It'd be nice to clear this up, because I am currently writing a Wikipedia article on the ship!
Cheers, <name removed>
The dates from builders' records are very clear - 20 January 1909 for BAHIA, 20 April 1909 for her sister RIO GRANDE DO SUL. This would tie in with the order of build. BAHIA was yard number 809, laid down 19 August 07, RIO GRANDE DO SUL laid down a fortnight later and commissioned two months later than BAHIA.
Conway has reversed the launch dates for the two ships - not an uncommon occurrence in naval books, including Jane's Fighting Ships.
Having said that, the builders' records are backed up by the 1914 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships - BAHIA January 1909, RIO GRANDE DO SUL April 1909. Not always a good source but much more contemporary and, in this case I believe, correct.
Miramar Ship Index
Image review for FAC
- I need a somewhat recent source that says that though. The Time piece referenced in this article mentions that, but it is dated to 1945! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed – the former was "over 100,000 nmi", and the latter was supposed to be 101,000 nmi. Thanks for your sharp eyes! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Absence of guide rails needs explanation
One of them shot it down, but also accidentally hit the depth charges on the stern—a direct consequence of the lack of guide rails that would normally prohibit the guns from being aimed at the ship.
Since this is pretty central to the cause of the ship's loss, it seems worth explaining why the usual guide rails were not in place. Anybody know? --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Modernization and inter-war years -- "embarked"?
The word "embarked" is used several times in this section (haven't checked the rest of the article) in a way I find confusing. I looked it up, to make sure I wasn't missing something, and I remain convinced that the word should be replaced with "aboard" or "on board," or rephrased using the word "carrying." The following sentence, already unwieldy, is further encumbered by the use of "embarked":
From 17–22 May 1935, Bahia and Rio Grande do Sul[N 7]—joined at an unknown point by the Argentine battleships Rivadavia and Moreno, the heavy cruisers Almirante Brown and Veinticinco de Mayo, and five destroyers—escorted São Paulo, with Brazilian President Getúlio Dornelles Vargas embarked, up the Río de la Plata (River Plate) to Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina.
- "Embarked" would be the proper term. Perhaps it could be linked to wikitonary, but I don't think it needs to be changed. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
7 mm (0.28 in) Hotchkiss machine gun
I wondered about the same thing. The link goes to a page about the company that manufactured the gun. That page has a link to a disambiguation page that lists 7 different Hotchkiss machine guns. Looking through those, only the M1914 lists a 7 mm caliber/cartridge (from Mauser). However, the M1922 doesn't list any calibers at all, so I don't feel confident changing the link to the M1914 gun on this basis. Does anyone have any idea which gun was installed? Gms3591 (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brazilian cruiser Bahia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226161020/http://www.naval.com.br/NGB/B/B006/B006.htm to http://www.naval.com.br/ngb/B/B006/B006.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Sunk by an explosion?
After WW II, at least five German U-boats reached Argentina with no less than 50 high ranking Third Reich officials on board. During the trip they sunk a US Battleship and the Brazilian cruiser 'Bahia' with a death toll of more than 400. --2001:E68:543D:905:681E:173C:AD75:D (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)