Talk:Russian monitor Novgorod
|Russian monitor Novgorod has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 3, 2015. ( ).
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russian monitor Novgorod article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from Russian monitor Novgorod appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 3 October 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
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; email@example.com
72 Mogg's Mead Petersfield Hampshire GU31 4NX United Kingdom
I am suprised that there aren't any pictures a.
- There is a spectacular painting in Commons currently. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
|1. Well written:|
|1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.||
|1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.||
|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.||
|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)
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. -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)