Talk:Russian battleship Potemkin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Russian battleship Potemkin 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 4, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
July 24, 2013 WikiProject A-class review Approved
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Shipwrecks (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated A-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. A-Class
A-Class article A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Socialism (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Soviet Union (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / History (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
 
WikiProject Ships (Rated A-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
A-Class article A  This article has been rated as A-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

It is usually written in simplified form Потемкин in Russia (instead of Потёмкин), but it is still pronounced in English "Potyomkin", not "Potyemkin" (in fact, it is pronounced "Patyomkin" because of unstressed "o") Pibwl 23:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

Russian battleship Potemkin and Battleship Potemkin uprising are both integral to the history of the battleship. The content of this article is largely duplicated in the other anyway. They ought to be merged under the name of the ship. Michael Z. 2006-10-16 22:24 Z

Support[edit]

  1. (nominator) Michael Z. 2006-10-16 22:24 Z
  2. Support shoy 19:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

Discussion[edit]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


WW1 carrear[edit]

It had a notable careear in ww1 clashing with Goeben (as a part of a squadron) several times, each time forcing it to retire.

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.118.206 (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeline section[edit]

The timeline section to some extent contradicts the origins section. The timeline section is also complete uncited. Please can someone add proper citations to reliable sources. (Communist propaganda films do not count as reliable sources.) If the timeline section cannot be provided with citations to reliable sources, it will be deleted.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Main armament muzzle velocity "9,160 ft/s (2,792 m/s)"?[edit]

This is clearly an error. The muzzle velocity on naval guns of this sort is nowhere near the claimed 9160 fps. The 2792 claimed as "meters per second" might be plausible as "feet per second." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.187.149 (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Engvar[edit]

As of this version from 2006 the article was stable and a non-stub in British English. --John (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In popular culture[edit]

The Soviet SSBN appear in "The Spy Who Loved Me" carrys the name Potemkin. --95.222.191.133 (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I'm not well-versed in MILHIST conventions, so ignore at will:

  • "All dates used in this article are New Style" this note seems to be irrelevant.
    • Imperial Russia didn't adopt the Gregorian calendar reforms, so they were about 10 days behind the calendar used in the west.
  • Why is the Goeben referred to as Yavuz Sultan Selim in the lede but never elsewhere? Confusing easter egg etc. Suggest using Ottoman name during description of battle but state somewhere that this is the renamed Goeben.
    • Excellent catch; I've switched every reference over to the Turkish name.
  • "They were intercepted by the German battlecruiser" the ship is no longer German.
    • Indeed.
  • Is there a WP:MOS rule about nbsp between dates and months e.g. 2  October? I see nbsps before other units of measurement
    • No.
  • "Panteleimon and the other Russian pre-dreadnoughts" can't use "the" without previous mention, so change "the" to the specific number instead.
    • Reworded this bit, see if it's clearer for you.
  • Why aren't the other instances of renaming the ship mentioned in the lede?
    • Too much detail, IMO, for the lede.
  • "after the first dreadnought entered service" wl dreadnought (I didn't because there may be a specific wl), and explain that dreadnoughts supplanted/superseded (or whatever the correct military term is) the pre-dreadnought shis en masse so that's why Potemkin was relegated to secondary roles...perhaps say the dreadnoughts became the capital ships?
    • See how it reads now.
  • "The new design combined shorter guns with" I don't know how much detail is needed here but certainly need concrete comparison of Potemkin's with Peresvet's. Comparison should offer concrete details re why the former's guns were more appropriate.... I put "shorter guns" just as a placeholder; you need "[detail] guns with range [detail]" or whatever specific details the designers thought were more appropriate.
    • Reworked this as well.
  • Lose the final blockquote, add that the film is considered a classic of propaganda, and if you're in a particulalry expansive mood, you might even add that it was a favorite of Goebbels who constantly referred to it and exhorted movie-makers to emulate it
    • OK, lemme find see if I can find a cite for that statement.
      • I'm not so sure about adding a bit about the film as you suggested above, as the whole legacy section is tied to the ship's role in the movie and the mutiny's effect on later history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I never have been and never will have anything but grudging acceptance for the "one cite at the end of the paragraph" style. Forex, I believe direct quotes must be cited immediately. Please see the cite needed I added. • 

Lingzhi(talk) 12:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

    • Just out of curiosity, what is your preferred method of citing? And you are indeed correct about the cite immediately following a quote, now to look it up... Thanks for your thorough review. I've made a lot of changes, so I'm anxious to get your opinion of them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I'll try to keep looking at the article... As for cites, I suppose that to some degree it varies on a case-by-case basis, except for direct quotes. The latter should always be cited immediately, very preferably including the specific page number where the quote is found. As for other things, it depends on how many sources you can find, and how many details are unique to each source. Citing every damn sentence is massively annoying and n00bish; in contrast, many people (other than me) accept the "one quote at the end" method. A happy medium might be to write a "one quote at the end" paragraph then add in one or two "unique details" in each para from a source other than the one at the end. If 3 or 4 or 5 sources give the same info, especially in a historical account, surely there must be some few differences in the details offered. So first write out a paragraph. Find details that only 1 or at most 2 sources offer, and cite a couple or three of those to the relevant sources. Then kinda put a cite at the end, pointing to the most famous or authoritative source. That last cite kinda has implied scope over the whole paragraph. Does that make sense? But that's only if you have many sources... • Lingzhi(talk) 04:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
        • It wasn't so much here because McLaughlin is the dominant source for all the non-Mutiny/film stuff, but my rule of thumb is to cite every time you change a source in a paragraph and otherwise at the end if everything in the para is from the same source. Sometimes I'll multi source things if the source changes every clause because it's just too damn annoying to splatter cites like that across a paragraph, but most times I don't really need to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I agree. I dislike "one cite at the end", but many others think it's OK. And your other comments seem reasonable too. • Lingzhi(talk) 05:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)