Talk:Russian battleship Knyaz Suvorov/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Benea (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 1 - It is reasonably well written.
 * Prose no, MoS yes (after a copyedit).
 * The MoS compliance in terms of links, formatting of ship names, etc was pretty poor before my copyedit, but this should be ok now. However there are many sentences that should be clarified or rewritten:
 * 'She was completed at the beginning of September and had virtually no comprehensive sea trials, on 26 September 1904 Suvorov participated in a naval review for the Tsar.' Split these sentences, and if there is a relation between the two, explain it.
 * Seperated. Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 'As a result, her crew was newly assigned and largely inexperienced.' As a result of the naval review?
 * Moved. Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Due to the will of Admiral Zinovy Rozhestvensky, the squadron was overfilled...' Do you mean on the orders of? Overloaded rather than overfilled?
 * Changed. Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 'This lowered the ships further into the water, putting the main armor belt under the waterline and exposing the lighter armored belt in a more vulnerable place, which would prove fatal during her career.' Further than what? I assume her designed limit. If you're using a comparison, make sure you include both parts. Same with more vulnerable, more vulnerable than where? You say it was fatal, but no explanation of why here or later on. Was this a crucial factor in her loss? the concept of lowering a ship into the water is not what is really meant here either I suspect.
 * Fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I make the relevant page p. 31 rather than 29. And it says that the Russian designs were heavier than expected, making no reference to coal, which would have been much reduced by steaming from Madagascar to Tsushima. Did the squadron take on more coal after Madagascar? Please check your sources, where has the coal theory come from? Interestingly Forczyk even acknowledges that with the main belt submerged, the Japanese were still unable to penetrate the thinner upper armour.
 * 'opened up' - opened fire would be preferable.
 * Changed. Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 'She managed to enter a fog where she extinguished several fires' and 'and started to fight fires caused during the battle'. It was the crew fighting the fires, not the ship herself.
 * Changed. Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * abaft is a relative term, abaft of what?
 * Changed to "in the stern of the ship". Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This has now become 'with the only operable 75 millimeter gun located in the stern of the ship' - when I think you mean to say that this was the only remaining operable gun on the ship, which happened to be a 75mm, which happened to be in the stern?
 * 'leaving a midshipman in command as she went to rescue the crew of the Oslyabya' - be clear about your subject here. It can be confusing as to which ship the midshipman was left in command of, and which ship went to rescue the crew.
 * Fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 'knocking Rozhestvensky unconscious with a segment of shrapnel to the head' - the two are not connected in this sentence, try 'a segment of shrapnel hit Rozhestvensky in the head, knocking him unconscious.
 * Changed to "knocking Rozhdestvensky unconscious". Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent, Рожественский transliterates as 'Rozhestvensky', the name used in the sources, but Rozhdestvensky appears in a number of places.
 * 'She managed to enter a fog' - 'enter fog', or 'enter a fog bank'.
 * 'participated in a naval review for the Tsar.' - which Tsar?
 * 'their designed weight' - displacement surely?
 * 'Soon, one 18...' - how soon? Possibly just omit that.
 * 'Tōgō Heihachirō, the commander of the Japanese fleet, ordered both Mikasa and Asahi to open fire on Suvorov, which, due to her position at the front of the Russian battle line, was a major target and was hit by Japanese 12-inch shells, disabling both main gun turrets and showering shrapnel amongst the deck, wounding and killing many officers, along with ripping open hoses that were planned to be used to start fighting the fires that had broken out amongst the ship' - a very long and convoluted sentence, please break it up a bit.
 * 'left Russia' - I'd name the port, Libau.
 * 'smoke filled' - hyphenate this.
 * 'her twin bow guns' - be more specific, 'her bow-mounted 12 inch guns' perhaps, given that she had four main guns in two turrets, not including secondary armament in the bows.
 * 'This was graphically demonstrated...' - what was being demonstrated was that they were too low, i.e. a bit of a design flaw? Is 'graphically' needed here?
 * 'after a Japanese shell hit her control room' - somewhat ambiguous, different rooms controlled different functions, engines, steering, gunnery. Probably use bridge here, and link it.
 * 'The captain of Imperator Aleksander III decided to recreate the charge executed by Retvizan at the Battle of the Yellow Sea to save the Tsesarevich, and turned his ship towards the Japanese battleline' - this should be given greater context, or probably omitted altogether, since it's questionable the extent to which it was a deliberate recreation, or more likely that faced with a similar situation, the captain of Imperator Aleksander III responded in the same way as that of the Retvizan had.
 * 'off most of the officers on Suvorov' - something to avoid the use of off.../on..., maybe 'evacuated most of the officers remaining on Suvorov.'


 * 2 - It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * References yes, citations yes
 * It's a minor point, but standardise the refs, so that you use p. 31 for example throughout rather than alternating with a pg 31 format.
 * I'm looking at the same edition of Forczyk and the cites don't match up all the time. As above, please make sure what you are saying is actually supported by what is in the source. eg 'the only engagement she ever served in.' is not in the source, especially if you take into account the Dogger Bank incident.


 * 3 - It is broad in its coverage.
 * Major aspects no, focused yes
 * The significance of the position in the line should be made clear.
 * Stated. Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Russians did not have a T, the Japanese crossing the straight Russian line created a T shape. Hence Suvorov could not have been at the head of it. Indeed where would the head of a T be anyway?
 * Fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing on the hugely arduous and significant voyage of the Second Squadron to the Pacific, a big chunk of the operational life is therefore missing.
 * There isn't really that much to write about it, besides the situation with the coal. The only notable incident, the Dogger Bank incident, ahppened with the cruisers in the rear and did not involve Suvorov. Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pleshakov and Hough fill most of the several hundred page books with the movements of the squadron to the Pacific. Absolutely the Dogger Bank incident included the Suvorov! Rozhestvensky gave the order to open fire, and it was the guns of the Suvorov that were the first to engage, and continued to engage trawlers despite Rozhestvensky's order to cease fire. It was Suvurov which signalled the fleet to stop firing. It was the Suvorov's guns that in the excitement pounded the Aurora and the Donskoi. The gunners had to be dragged away from their guns by their officers, but broke free and continued firing!
 * 'exiting the line in a circular movement at about the same time as Oslyabya, the flagship of the third division' - can you explain Oslyabya's movements?
 * Removed. Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 'As Nebogatov’s 3rd Division' - who is Nebogatov? What is the third division?
 * Explained. Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is more to be said about Suvorov's role in the battle as well, as well as Rozhestvensky's actions during the battle, such as the apparent wanderings the dazed and disorientated admiral made around the ship as the battle was fought.
 * Never heard of that. Of course, I have yet to look in the sources below, but I don't know if I'd be able to find any sources for it. About Suvorov I express the same beliefs. How much more is there? Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The current dependence on just one source for the service section is probably the most serious issue here. I'd definitely want to see more about how the state of the Suvorov, the Russian flagship, affected the Russian fighting at Tsushima. There is plenty more in the works below, which offer a more balanced approach as well. Forczyk's assessment of Rozhestvensky as a 'screaming imbecile' for example is effectively demolished in Pleshakov's book. Suvorov's damage meant she couldn't send signals, when she wheeled out of the line damaged, the Alexander III, Orel and Borodino followed as well for several minutes, unaware what was happening.
 * The dependence on just two sources for the vast majority of the detail is a major failing in this article, particularly when one of them is Forczyk's contribution to the Osprey series. As far as rigorous scholarship goes, its very basic and lacks a lot of detail. I'd certainly recommend at a minimum Hough's The Fleet That Had To Die and Pleshakov's The Tsar's Last Armada.
 * I don't have library access right now (my card has expired), so I'm stuck with google Books, which has a preview of Tsar's Armada. I also have some other refs, so I'd prefer if you'd wait a couple days as I assemble them. Buggie111 (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 'You have seven days so take the time you need. More sources will help to address these issues.
 * Soon after, she rejoined the tail end of the remainder of the Russian battle line, but could not stay in formation for long, breaking off and starting to head south. Several minutes later, the Russian destroyer Bychok, came and took off most of the officers on Suvorov,' - just the officers, or was this a general evacuation? What had changed to make them rejoin the battle line, but then decide to abandon ship?
 * As far as I can tell, the destroyer which evacuated Rozhestvensky and his staff was the Buiny. There doesn't even seem to have been a Bychok at the battle.
 * I'd probably like to see the captain at the battle named, and the midshipman who took over.
 * Forczyk says 20 survivors, but does not specify if these were the men taken off by Buiny. Other sources say there were no survivors from those left on board at the final sinking.
 * More detail on the damage, the hit below the waterline on the starboard side is not mentioned.
 * As with more detail on the attack, there was a torpedo attack before the evacuation by four torpedo boats, Suvorov being hit in the stern but driving them away and continuing to fight, but this is not mentioned.


 * 4 - It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: yes


 * 5 - It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc: yes


 * 6: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales: yes. Appropriate use with suitable captions: yes, but please add alttext to the images.
 * Done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Use the |alt= parameter to fit the alt text in. If you are going to caption the infobox picture, some context should be used, i.e. where and when the photo was taken. Otherwise the name can probably be omitted if that's the only information you are conveying.


 * Overall: On hold.

I don't think I'll be able to finish this in a week. Could you please close this review, and I'll come back in several months with a fully cited and written article. My check of my other sources (mainly Russian sources), mention the trip as a mere hash mark, so it seems I'm gonna have to fix the troubles with my library card, which delays this alot. Buggie111 (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand, and look forward to seeing this article further expanded. I'd be happy to help, and have quite a few sources. Take your time, and renominate when you feel ready. Benea (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)