Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Rivadavia-class battleship

Rivadavia-class battleship[edit]

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 17, 2015 by Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two Rivadavia-class battleships were constructed for Argentina as a part of a wider South American naval arms race. To counter Brazil's two Minas Geraes-class dreadnoughts, Argentina began seeking bids for at least two of their own in 1908. Over the next two years, multiple shipbuilders from five countries vied for the contracts, complemented by efforts from their respective governments. Argentina's choice of the Fore River Shipbuilding Company, based in the United States, in early 1910 shocked the European bidders, but could partly be explained by the American steel trust's ability to produce steel at a lower cost than any other country. Amid increasing tension in Europe that would lead to the First World War, newspapers speculated that the Argentine dreadnoughts would be sold to European nation. Under diplomatic pressure, the Argentines decided to keep the ships, and they arrived in the country in February and May 1915. Throughout their careers, the two Argentine dreadnoughts were based in Puerto Belgrano and served principally as training ships and diplomatic envoys. Both were sold for scrap in the late 1950s. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): SM U-66 (22 April)
Main editors: The ed17
Promoted: 4 September 2010
Reasons for nomination: Argentina's Navy Day and approximate centennial of Moreno's arrival in Argentina. I realize that this nomination is a bit late, but I've only just noticed it, and it will be the last applicable centennial for this article for quite some time. I'm hopeful that the current nom for 17 May, which has no date connection, can be pushed back by a week. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Personally, I don't think rescheduling FAs is a good idea, because Blackrock was originally supposed to be FA on May 1, the anniversary of its commercial release, and for some reason it was rescheduled, and the new May 1 article became The Tower House, which does not have a connection with May 1. Okay, I realize that Common starling does not have a date connection, but still I don't like rescheduling articles. TVShowFan122 (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Blackrock was deferred, at the main editor's request, because he was negotiating for use of a copyrighted image which he felt should adorn the main page. So I swopped its date with The Tower House, with the agreement of its main editors. There were no date-related noms for either 1st or 13th, nor for 17th. There has been rather a lot of asking for changed dates this month, and I have generally complied. However, putting this into the 17th slot would mean more shifting about, to avoid a congestion of war-related TFAs. All of that is a considerable pain in the arse to an overworked TFA co-ordinator who wants his dinner. Please remember that we try to schedule well in advance, to provide maximum time for preparing each article, and that the "available" nominating dates are clearly indicated at the head of the summary table, above. Brianboulton (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Here we have a perfect example of why this business of scheduling TFAs so far in advance, and treating them then as if that were set in stone and impossible to change, creates a problem and results in sub-optimal usage of the TFA slot. This is a significant anniversary, and it should be taken advantage of, and the long-standing ability of the TFA delegate to make last-minute changes to reflect important dates or developments should be respected. IF there is now so much maintenance built in to the notifications, and other muckity-muck involved in TFA, then perhaps some of that should be eliminated so we can return to flexibility in TFA scheduling. (Had we been able to take advantage of Tim Howard's Secretary of Defense day during last year's World Cup, we would have had a perfect opportunity-- one which I've waited almost ten years for-- to run Tourette syndrome at a time it was in the world's media. But we are so locked in so far in advance now that we miss great TFA opportunies.) We historically had one TFA person who was able to make crucial last-minute decisions; we now have three coordinators, so juggling a TFA more than a week in advance should not be undoable for them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense to suggest that things are "set in stone and impossible to change" – as I've said, I have frequently changed things when there is good reason. If this is such a significant anniversary it should have been flagged up and nominated in the normal way. Also, you have clearly forgotten the chaos that used to occur when TFA scheduling was regularly left until the last few days. I don't accept that two to three weeks scheduling ahead is unreasonable, particularly as in a number of cases the main editors of the chosen article have vanished, and we have to rely on someone else to valet the article to the required standard. Anyway, I haven't said I won't change it, only that it's a bloody nuisance because I'll undoubtedly have to change a couple of others as well. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend for my Support to come across as criticism of you or your choices, Brian, nor to imply that you wouldn't reschedule if needed-- just putting out the whole argument in favor of increased flexibility as I see it (as much as anything in response to the poster ahead of you-- and because I lived in Argentina and noticed this anniversary-- and Personally, I don't think rescheduling FAs is a good idea caught my eye). I disagree that there was chaos before (but we all know my views on that :), and think that if we now have so much paperwork surrounding scheduling, we might need to rethink some parts of the process in favor of flexibility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize for nominating this so late; it was not my intention to do so, but I only remembered at the proverbial last minute. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a way of doing it, but it'll take me a few days. Let's all kiss and make up. Brianboulton (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: If I can help and reduce some of the workload, let me know. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
xoxoxoxoxo, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]