Talk:Russian monitor Novgorod

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Russian battleship Novgorod)
Jump to: navigation, search

Comment[edit]

I have been amassing data for many years on these type of circular ironclads for a book.

Would appreciate any data people may have concerning them including rare photographs.

Dr Cliff Roffey

e-mail address; cgroffey@aol.com

postal address;

72 Mogg's Mead Petersfield Hampshire GU31 4NX United Kingdom

I am suprised that there aren't any pictures a.

Images[edit]

We really ought to have an image - surely one of the ones in the external links is out of copyright? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a spectacular painting in Commons currently. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian monitor Novgorod/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 11:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
  • it isn't clear whether the R4M was for the guns or the ships
    • I don't understand, what's R4M?
      • four million roubles.
  • needs a comma after programme
  • perhaps to lift her propellers?
  • perhaps replace was identical with with was the same thickness as?
    • I've reworded it, but your suggestion doesn't quite work because of the unusual construction of the armor. See how well it reads.
  • were the 4-pounders muzzle-loaders too?
    • Most likely, based on age, but source doesn't specify.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • John Elder wikilink should be piped
  • I think the myth and the reality should be addressed in the lead. Clearly she was not as bad as the myth makes out.
    • Added a line.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • Nearly all of the images on this article have inadequate information to support the licensing, where a pma license used there is no known author, where author of the painting is known there is no info about the date of death of the author to base the license of the original artwork on. This will need to be sorted asap, because I would usually treat multiple images with inadequate licensing as a quick fail.
  • With the removal of the questioned images, this is fine now.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. passing

Fixed the link. I'm not sure what you want me to do about the images. They're 140 years old, so it's not exactly unreasonable to assume that the photographer, whoever he was, is long dead, although possibly not long enough. I wish that I could find a publication history so we could know if they were published before 1923 or not. All I do know is that recent publications of them have sometimes been credited to a couple of Russian naval historians who also collected photos that they couldn't have taken themselves. The preponderance of evidence, mainly their age, leads me to believe that they're out of copyright. You may feel differently, especially if you expect proof positive of their provenance, but their age weighs very heavily with me. If they were more recent, I'd want better documentation, like I had to do with the Oslyabya photos, but in this case....

I do have a question for you if you have a little bit of time. Russian monitor Vitse-admiral Popov was the other ship built by Popov and I've stalled out on finishing the article because of the sheer amount of redundancy with Novgorod about the peculiarities of the design. Even though the two ships aren't really sisters, they're the only ships build according to Popov's principles and I'm wondering if it would be best to write up a "class" article where all the common information about them could be covered in detail, which would allow me to trim both of the individual ship articles down to just the stuff about them. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they have a lot of commonality, and that a "class" article (Popov-designed monitors?) would help pull out the repetitive nitty gritty. As far as the images are concerned, I do sympathise, but I get pulled up all the time on image licensing for Austro-Hungarian ships in particular. It took me forever to get just one image acceptable at A-Class for each of the A-H/Yugoslav river monitors, and I just don't feel I can let these pics go through to the keeper without a view from someone far more experienced in image copyright. In the interests of fairness, I'm pinging Nikkimaria and asking her for a second opinion on the images used in this article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
An 1873/74 photographer could have been as young as his 20s, which would make it quite possible for him to have died less than 100 years ago (though more than 70). What is the earliest known publication for File:Popovship002-4.jpg and File:Popovship002-5.jpg?
We can't use File:NovogorodBuilding.jpg without more information - the given source was published in 1998 so the URAA tag does not apply. Does the book itself credit an earlier source?
From what I can tell the artist of File:KrasovskiyN_PribPopovNovCV.jpg died in 1906, so this is fine as life+100. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Tracking down the history of the photos is going to be very time-consuming, so I've deleted them for now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dealt with all of your comments, see how they suit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

All good. Passing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


Popovka?[edit]

A translation/explanation of "popovka" the first time it appears would be appreciated by people who don't speak Russian. (i.e *why* did Tsar Alexander nickname it "popovka" - is it a slang term for "great wallowing beast"? Is it a reference to a similarly shaped bread roll? Is it just Popov's name with a '-ka' attached? Then what does the '-ka' mean? Is it a marker for a diminutive? a superlative? an expletive? Is there any significance for the Tsar to be giving it a nickname?) With the statement as it is currently, I feel I'm missing something that would be obvious to someone with more knowledge of Russian and 19th century Russian history. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The middle paragraph of the background section wasn't clear enough to show the relationship between the nickname and the designer?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)