Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ARA Rivadavia/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:13, 26 March 2011.

ARA Rivadavia

 * Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC), - Dank (push to talk)

Rivadavia is another article in my drive to get all South American dreadnought articles to FA. The ship had an interesting beginning but a stunningly boring career. The bidding process, described in detail in the class article, angered many countries, and the choice of an American country angered them further. Still, it turned out to be a fortuitous decision, as a ship ordered from a European company would have been taken over at the start of WWI. After many rumors of a sale to a belligerent country, Argentina took over the ships and did virtually nothing with them, aside from a European cruise in 1937, until they were scrapped in the late 50s.

I originally wrote this article in mid-2009. I improved it in December 2010, when it passed a WikiProject A-class review. I hope you enjoy reading the article!


 * Quick comment ... it's been a while since I've jumped in on a FAC that was underway, and I want to make sure no one gets the idea that I'm angling for a bronze star when I review or copyedit ... it's all free. Ed and I have worked together for a long time, including on this article, and he was pretty insistent that I join him. - Dank (push to talk) 04:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick plea for help from someone who has access to a New York Time archive (eg ProQuest): the Times took page numbers off of their archive, so I need your help to complete references 13 and 24. Many thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The 22.56 knots article is page 2; the "Off for home" article is page 12. Sasata (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're my new favorite person, Sasata. :-) Thank you very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw I know very little about the topic, so please accept that some of these comments may be due to my ignorance:

Lead
 * Is acorazados Spanish for battleship or dreadnought battleship? Do we need this translated and the term for the Argentine Navy?
 * It's Spanish for battleship. I've clarified this in the text. I've also removed the translation for the Ergentine Navy, as it was already in the footnote (as you say below). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note 1 tells us that "ARA" is an acronym for Armada de la República Argentina which is currently in brackets in the text — why are both needed?
 * Would it be worth wikilinking Axis powers as some readers may not be aware of the meaning of this phrase?
 * Done. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Background Construction and trials
 * Do refs 2 & 3 at the end of the paragraph cover the sentence about the naval arms races between Chile and Argentina?
 * Yup, Scheina does. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I found the linking of "Rivadavia-class" to the Japanese Kasuga class cruiser confusing
 * Do you have a suggestion as to how to make it better? They weren't the Kasuga class until later... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "and Argentina sold its two Rivadavia-class armored cruisers under construction in Italy to Japan where they became the Kasuga class.?&mdash; Rod talk 19:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are the Navy bureau (1st para) and the Navy Department (2nd para) the same thing?
 * It's not a Navy Bureau (which would need a capital "B"). They're bureau chiefs from the Navy. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I'll go with your expert knowledge.&mdash; Rod talk 08:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is all of the third paragraph covered by reference 15?
 * No, but it does cover all the sentences back to reference 12.
 * Does speed trials need to be a redlink?
 * Agreed, there are several options for blue links. - Dank (push to talk)
 * How can you have "30-hour endurance trial the next day"? a day is only 24 hrs.
 * Added "starting". - Dank (push to talk)
 * Wow, nice catch. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority of this section is about political issues rather than "Construction and trials".
 * I created a new section, Attempted sale, but feel free to revert, Ed. I moved the one sentence about the commissioning into Service ... that information usually occurs before the Service section, but I think ordering things chronologically makes the most sense, which puts that sentence after the material on the attempted sale, and it would look lonely in its own paragraph in the previous section. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks I think that is helpful.&mdash; Rod talk 08:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it as well – that's a much better way of organizing the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Service
 * Is it normal to take 2 months to get from the USA to Buenos Aires?
 * Hmmm. The ship would have only traveled at 10 to 15 knots with stops for coal, but a trip to London at roughly half the distance would have only been a week or so... this is a very good question, and I will look farther into it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What does "First Division" mean in this context & why is it capitalised when "training division" isn't? (although it is in the 4th para)
 * I'm happy with the capitalization. "first division" doesn't mean the same thing as "First Division" (just as "First Army" doesn't mean "the first army"), but "Training Division" could only mean the training division, so the caps aren't necessary (and so are generally discouraged in AP, Chicago, and other current style guides). - Dank (push to talk)
 * So why are they needed in the 4th para?&mdash; Rod talk 08:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I missed that. Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The First Division of the navy, probably equivalent to a battle group today. My sources did not elaborate on the other ships or reason for this organization. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The vessel is the Rivadavia throughout until the 4th para of this section when we get "The dreadnought joined..." - any reason for the change?
 * I like the current wording. I can expand on that if you like. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I became confused with active & in reserve, later followed by "active service" which seems to be something different.
 * The grammar of "she was moored in Puerto Belgrano from 1948 on, "gradually reduced into ineffectiveness" from 1951, and was left derelict and unarmed, a source for cannibalized equipment, from 1952." could be improved - initial S capitalised & punctuation looked at.
 * I tweaked this a bit; I'd appreciate it if you'd both check it to see if you're happy with the result. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

References
 * Why are one journal and one author redlinked when the others aren't? Are they in some way more notable?

I hope these comments make sense and are useful.&mdash; Rod talk 19:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: Generally these look OK. Spotchecks on the online links reveal no problems. One question of format, re the Livermore citations. At present we have "12: Livermore 45", then "14: Livermore 45–46", "15: 46–47" and "16: Livermore 47". With all these overlaps there is scope for combining; why not "Livermore, 45–47"? Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian. To answer your query, they are in different paragraphs or have different refs in-between. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I've just finished copyediting per my standard disclaimer; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)
 * It's generally appropriate to give the foreign-language term (acorazado in this case) if that term is often used in English sources, which happens in some cases, especially if the foreign term doesn't mean exactly the same thing as the word that generally translates it. I haven't read most of the sources so I can't say whether this applies to acorazado.
 * "a general machinery overhaul,": You've got a comma at the end of a sentence here. If there's a period in the quoted material, you can put it either inside or outside the quote marks; otherwise it goes outside.
 * The general rule would be to lowercase "the navy", but I understand how you got rolling with "the Navy". If someone wants to change it, that's fine with me.
 * Support per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Hopping in as a co-nom ... I still support, but it's not the same thing :) - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs, 1 dead external link. (The second external link, the one to the spanish pictures) -- Pres N  00:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments
 * Class says 'Fore River Shipbuilding Company' while this article says 'Fore River Shipyard'. The latter is the wikilink for the former - they probably should be consistent.
 * Done Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the type 'battleship' or 'dreadnaught battleship'?
 * Uh, both? Pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts are all battleships. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't remember why I wrote that specficially; it varies in FA pre-WWI battleship articles.
 * The lengths don't match up between the class and this article.
 * Propulsion says 3 screws, shp (which I wikilinked); class says 3 shafts and spells out shaft horsepower. I'm not sure if shafts/screws are synonymous.
 * Range doesn't match class article.
 * Guns need should be converted to metric. Ditto Armor.  Kirk (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, all measurements should be in English, which conforms best to Argentina's usage when it was built. Adding |disp=flip to the templates will get them to display in English units. Be sure to add |sp=us to any remaining metric units to follow the American English used in the article.
 * Infobox should be fine now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Kirk (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment The two images seem to have appropiate licences MBelgrano (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Image copyright review: All clear. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose 
 * There are no cites anywhere to support virtually all the information in the infoboxes. I'd suggest that a couple of paragraphs of description be added.
 * WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines says no bullet lists in infoboxes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I added citations and removed the bulletpoints. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I really think that a reader would be better served by a couple paragraphs of description rather than littering the infobox with citations. However, that's not really a criteria here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * This is a dead link
 * Link fixed Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You sure? This still appears to be a dead link
 * I've searched the text for "histarmar", and that's not currently a link in the article; the only two links both work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Two of the External links are histarmar, but both seem to be working now, so I guess it's been fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think histarmar did some minor page moves a little while back. It was still on the site, just at a slightly different link. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "During their construction, the two dreadnoughts were subject to numerous rumors that Argentina might sell the two battleships to a country engaged in the First World War, but the ships were not sold" - phrasing is somewhat awkward, reword?
 * If "rumors" is at the heart of the problem, I can fix that. Otherwise, I need more. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Could be fixed by reordering the second clause - "During their construction, there were numerous rumors that Argentina...". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OVERLINK - for example, First World War is linked twice in the second paragraph
 * Prose in general is awkward in areas - though grammar is not a major issue here, suggest copy-editing for flow and clarity
 * I need more. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Some examples:
 * "Brazil decided in early 1907 to halt three obsolescent pre-dreadnoughts which were under construction in favor of two or three dreadnoughts" - probably clearer to write "..halt the construction of..."
 * Fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "a fast-growing rival to the United States" - fast-growing in what way? A rival how? Territorially, militarily, economically, in some other way?
 * Not convinced that "military" is necessary, but it doesn't hurt. Added. - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "the former believed that the British were going to be given the ships as soon as they reached Argentina" - as soon as the ships or the British reached Argentina?
 * Fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "the latter charged the United States with ensuring that the ships fell into Argentina's possession only" - awkward phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "extensive bidding process" is mentioned only in the lead
 * Added in the article Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "stricken from the Navy on 1 February 1957. Three months later on 30 May, Rivadavia was sold... Less than a year after that, the ship was towed by two tugboats to Savona, Italy; they left on 3 April 1959" - 3 April 1959 is not "less than a year" after 30 May 1957
 * Wow, that was sad. Fixed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Debates raged in Argentina over whether to spend more than two million pounds sterling to acquire their own dreadnoughts" - unclear who "they" refers to, I assume you mean Argentinians?
 * Fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "To reduce exhaust interference when spotting ships in a battle" - what does this mean?
 * The smoke from the funnels could interfere with accurate rangefinding of enemy ships in the midst of a battle. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That should probably be explained - non-specialist readers likely would be confused by it
 * Explained. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in using Second World War vs World War II
 * Fixed Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is Whitley? Give first name/initials and possibly a brief description (ex. "military historian", "professor" - whatever he is) in the text
 * I reworded the sentence to avoid using his name. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we know how much the ship cost?
 * £2,214,000 pounds sterling. The class article has a dollar figure, but I've been told that using Measuring Worth is not an accurate conversion for something relating to GDP and purchasing power. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bibliographic information for Scheina, Naval History?
 * Added, nice catch Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in using Battleships of World War Two vs Battleships as the shortened title for Whitley
 * Done, I think this was because I have been moving background information in and out of this article from the other two Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume Buzaco is a foreign-language source? Should be noted as such
 * Chicago does not note the foreign language, presumably because the reader can assume it is not in English when the title is foreign. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Scheina or Schenia? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nikki, I'll address these comments tonight after work! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All of your comments should be addressed. Thanks very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly fixed; noted a couple things above, and the prose isn't "brilliant", but it's looking better. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments: The article is generally sound, although I agree with Nikkimaria that the prose needs some work. I'll be happy to support once these are addressed. Aptery gial  01:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * General note: I'm happy to respond to any comments on the prose, although I don't always agree. If my suggestions don't sound right to Australian ears, let me know. - Dank (push to talk)
 * The Australian/American/British English divide is generally exaggerated; I read a lot of texts published in the States for my work and study, so I'm generally aware of any differences. Aptery  gial  00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "During their construction, there were numerous rumors that Argentina might sell them to a country engaged in the First World War, but the ships were not sold." Why say "numerous?"? "rumors" (with the plural) should stand on its own.
 * There were numerous rumors, that is, rumors that sprang independently from quite a few sources. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I still don't understand why "rumors" can't cover this. "Numerous" just sounds vague. Aptery  gial  00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * United States should not need linking.
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Perhaps "She saw no active duty during the Second World War; Argentina remained neutral until March 1945 when the country declared war on the Axis powers, too late for Rivadavia to become involved."
 * This changes the meaning in a couple of ways, but it might be okay. Ed? - Dank (push to talk)
 * I would be fine with this change. The parallel I draw on is with the Brazilian battleships – while were not actively used because they were old and not in the best condition, but at the same time they were employed in limited capacities. Presumably the Rivadavias would have at least been used in limited ways had they joined the Allies sooner. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Rivadavia's genesis can be traced to the naval arms races between Chile and Argentina which were spawned by territorial disputes over their mutual borders in Patagonia and Puna de Atacama along with control of the Beagle Channel." Perhaps add a couple of commas to break up the sentence: "Rivadavia's genesis can be traced to the naval arms races between Chile and Argentina, which were spawned by territorial disputes over their mutual borders in Patagonia and Puna de Atacama, along with control of the Beagle Channel."
 * I can't add the first comma because that's a restrictive clause. I added the second comma. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Good point. Aptery  gial  00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps even combine "1890s" into the first sentence here, so "...can be traced to naval arms races between Chile and Argentina in the 1890s, which were spawned..." The next sentence would then be "These naval arms races flared up again in 1902, and were eventually stopped through British mediation."
 * I'd agree with you if the second sentence had to add a lot more words in order to fit "1890s" in, but it didn't. Since the first sentence seemed to you to need "breaking up" (and I agree), it's not going to help things to add even more to the sentence. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Well, what caught me out when I read it the first time is whether the naval arms races that are mentioned in the first sentence are the same as those in the second sentence. Combining was one option, I suppose another is to say "These arms races flared up...", just to link the ideas together. Aptery  gial  00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. I changed "Naval arms races" to "These arms races" in the second sentence, does that fix both problems? - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Aptery  gial  23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Through" rather than "via".
 * Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus, in the thesaurus, groups "via" with "with the assistance or aid of, on, supported by". Merriam-Webster's gives: "through the medium or agency of".  Do you have a dictionary, thesaurus or style guide that sheds some light on this? - Dank (push to talk)
 * My Oxford dictionary defines "via" as "by way of, through", but generally only between places, not subjects. If "via" has a slightly different meaning in American English, then keep it in, otherwise "through" flows better. Aptery  gial  00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The definition at of via at oxforddictionaries.com does suggest that "through" would be better in BritEng. Thanks for bringing this up ... as I said, I'm always looking to massage the language so that it's clear to non-Americans, if we can do that without damage to the AmEng. Done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * " abrupt shock". Shocks are generally abrupt.
 * Agreed, fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Historian Robert Scheina commented that the ships ordered by Brazil "outclassed the entire [elderly] Argentinian fleet."" This is very picky, but the way it is written suggests he said it at the time.
 * Agreed, changed to "has commented". - Dank (push to talk)
 * This quote seems a little incongruous in the text; perhaps better as an explanatory note?
 * I removed the quote and replaced it with textual info and a contemporary quote from the Argentine Foreign Minister. What do you think of it now? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Did the wife of the Argentine Minister to the United States have a name?
 * Ed? - Dank (push to talk)
 * The New York Times names her only as "Mme. Naon. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Our article on Naon says "he married Isabel Rodríguez Marcenal", and a google search reveals the same. Not sure how strict we are being on the "every fact cited" rule, but we might be able to get away with adding this. Perhaps "...christened by Isabella, the wife of Rómulo Sebastián Naón, the Argentine Minister to the United States, on 26 August 1911..." Aptery  gial  23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "In mid-September 1913, Rivadavia conducted trials off Rockland, Maine, but only after a two-week delay after turbine malfunctions." Perhaps, "After a two-week delay due to turbine malfunctions, Rivadavia conducted trials off Rockland, Maine, in mid-September 1913."
 * I rejected "due to" at first, but after reading up a bit, I think it's fine. "Due to" gets the stink-eye from some overzealous style gurus.  Otherwise, I prefer Ed's word order, but I can agree to lose "but only".  Okay with you, Ed? - Dank (push to talk)
 * Either way is fine with me. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since speed trials is a red link, perhaps add a short explanation, or de-link.
 * It's been mentioned above. - Dank (push to talk)
 * So we'll see what the resolution is. Aptery  gial  00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we could link this to Sea trial... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * " various rumors".
 * It's not wrong, but I can go along with losing the modifier here (as opposed to above) because all the examples follow immediately, so the reader doesn't have to be told that there are a lot of rumors. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "some Argentines". In government or the military, or the media, or the populace?
 * In the government, which implies also outside the goverment. I can add that if you like. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Thanks. Aptery  gial  00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "This angered the American government, which did not want its warship technology offered to the highest bidder—yet they did not want to exercise a contract-specified option that gave the United States first choice if the Argentines decided to sell, as naval technology had already progressed past the Rivadavia class, particularly in the adoption of the "all-or-nothing" armor scheme." Very long sentence; suggest splitting after "highest bidder", so "...offered to the highest bidder. However, they did not..."
 * I split it, but I went with "Neither did they want ...". Rationalizations on request. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Instead, the United States and its State Department and Navy Department put diplomatic pressure on the Argentine government." How so?
 * I had the same question; apparently, the sources don't say. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Are there other sources that might?
 * Not in English, to my knowledge. A Spanish source might have something, but I don't really know. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "...even though she was not fully completed until December." Maybe "although" rather than "even though"?
 * "Even though" is slightly stronger than "although" in AmEng, and appropriate here since she was being commissioned a long time before she was finished. Does it sound wrong to Australian ears? - Dank (push to talk)
 * Slightly stronger in any English, I think. So it doesn't sound wrong, just a little awkward. My attitude is that you let the reader decide what needs special emphasis. Aptery  gial  00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely it's common knowledge Buenos Aires is the capital of Argentina?
 * For graduates of the US educational system, it's not common knowledge that South America is south of North America. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fair enough. But where do you draw the line? (Not suggesting you add it, but I'm assuming Boston Harbor is in Boston, Massachusetts, which a graduate of the Australian education system usually wouldn't know). Aptery  gial  00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish I could assume it is, but some of the people I know can't even name the capital of the state we live in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Over 47,000 what?
 * People. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I assumed that was the case. Can that be added in? Aptery  gial  00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "President of the Republic Victorino de la Plaza." Perhaps "Argentinian President Victorino de la Plaza.
 * What's wrong with reminding people that Argentina was a republic, and avoiding frequent repetition of "Argentina"? - Dank (push to talk)
 * What tripped me up was that there are eight consecutive words which are linked. The fact that Argentina was a republic is not critical to understanding this article, but I'll let this go.
 * I shortened it to "President" -- there's no need for the wordiness. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "...she called on three countries in the Caribbean and northern South America, includingTrinidad, Venezuela, and Colombia." or "...she called on three countries in the Caribbean and northern South America: including Trinidad, Venezuela, and Colombia."
 * Oops, thanks. Dropped "three". - Dank (push to talk)
 * "over the years" is an awkward phrase; perhaps "...and was gradually cannibalized..."
 * I went with "over many years"; "gradually" isn't right, since a lot of it happened immediately. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Thanks for your comments. - Dank (push to talk) 04:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've struck out those points which are resolved, commented where it was needed, and I'll wait for Ed to take a look at the remainder. Aptery  gial  00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I handled a few. Ed's busy but should be back soon.  Thanks for your comments. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, I think I've addressed the rest! Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Support: I'm satisfied with the article. There are a couple of outstanding points, but not enough to prevent me from supporting, and I'm confident they'll be fixed. Aptery gial  23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I have addressed your remaining points. Thanks so much for your review – I really appreciate the time you took to put this together. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Query Hi Ed17, nice work, just a couple of queries
 * 1) "designed by the American Fore River Shipbuilding Company" begs the question who built it? May I suggest "designed and built by the American Fore River Shipbuilding Company".
 * Thanks for your review, WSC. You know, I was all about getting the lead sentences right a year ago ... all the good feedback we're getting at FAC these days is making me realize that my focus on Milhist's A-class review hasn't been entirely good for my copyediting ... I'm faster now, but sloppier.  I'll have to fix that.  I added "and built" and moved this bit from the first sentence to the second paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dank, didn't realize you and Ed17 were collaborating on this. Curious isn't it how this site draws one into lots of milhist editing.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Conversion from coal to fuel oil is liable to greatly increase the range, or free up bunker space for other purposes. Could you check whether the range figure was before or after the refit?
 * It would be before, as it didn't list the armament alterations. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "The rumors were partially true; some Argentines in the government were looking to get rid of the battleships and devote the proceeds to opening more schools". Presumably being an Argentine wasn't particularly unusual in that particular Government?
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Thanks, I was thinking of linking that into a history of Argentina article, but History of Argentina (The Radicals in Power, 1916–1930) has the Conservatives in power until 1916, then losing to the radicals. I think that jibes with the bit about socialist gains in 1914, I was thinking of simply replacing Socialist with Radical, but the dates conflict.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  22:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh oh, I wonder if Livermore is wrong in his date of 1914? Socialists can't gain in 1914 without an election... does anyone have a source on this? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only book I checked is Scheina's Latin America. It's not there. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like both the Radicals and the Socialists made massive gains in 1914 and 1916. The Radicals went from 24% in 1912 to 32%, then 48%. The Socialists went from 21% in 1912 to 36% to 41%. See p. 228 in Jeremy Adelman, "Socialism and Democracy in Argentina in the Age of the Second International," The Hispanic American Historical Review 72, no. 2 (1972), 211–238, . Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) As she served as flagship I'd expect the name of an Admiral to appear as well as commanding officers.
 * My sources don't give any... I may try hunting in the London Times microfilms this weekend for more details on this and the communist oil strike. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Some mention of crew sizes and structure would be relevant.
 * My sources give a single crew size number, and nothing more. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "In 1917, the ship sailed to Comodoro Rivadavia when communist oil workers went on strike" - more detail on this would be interesting, was this to maintain order or to break the strike?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's all Whitley says. I thought the same thing as you when I first read that... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Looking at the pictures I see five twin gun turrets as the main armament but the article refers to 12 main guns, though I suppose it is possible there is another turret amidships. Please could you check this and confirm their layout.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See File:Rivadavia-class battleships.jpg. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - aside from a few nitpicks, a nice easy read that was comprehensible and understandable.
 * Why are we translating the word "battleship" in the lead into Spanish???
 * I'm currently reviewing a Milhist article with every 10th word in German, and no one seems to have a problem with that except me, so considered it a victory that I was able to cut out as much Spanish as I did :) My position, FWIW: I can understand that scholarly sources are going to throw in a lot of foreign words just to prove how scholarly they are (so impressive), and I can understand that some writers believe they're following our advice to follow the sources ... and they may be right.  If even the best-written scholarly sources tend to use the Spanish word, perhaps to express a subtle distinction, then we can argue that we're doing the reader a service to define and introduce the word ... in fact, they may not be able to understand the sources if we don't, since most scholarly sources aren't as helpful as we are. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Put it in a note, it's very very jarring out there in the lead. At first, I thought you had misplaced the translation of the ship's name! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough people have remarked on this, and it's not an integral translation, so I just removed it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I really dislike the whole easter egg link thing - wouldn't it be okay to go "...she was the lead ship of the Rivadavia class"?
 * I was trying to avoid repeating "Rivadavia", but if you think this is better, I'm fine with changing this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This one I'm ambivalent enough about that you don't need to bother changing just for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you feel it's better, I'm open to changing it. I've always thought the link was a bit hidden with "her class", but it has become a habit to write my leads in that way. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Might not it be good to note who commissioned HMS Dreadnought?
 * Yes it would, nice catch! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that "Minas Geraes or São Paulo" refers to the Brazilian dreadnoughts? Might make this clearer.
 * You're very right, does this work? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you can probably drop the easter egg link to "launched" in the Construction section, especially as it links to the same article linked for 'christened'.
 * I combined the links, is that all right? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Inflation figure for the sale price to the breakers?
 * Meh, I'm not getting into all that, see all the hubbub here over inflationary conversions. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is why I write on nice safe medieval subjects a lot... avoid that sort of fuss. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For the most part, battleships are also nice and safe. Isn't it great to avoid all the arguments inherent in controversial topics? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My replies are above. Sorry to Dank for overwriting your lower comments, but I didn't feel like restoring "Ed got it" after the edit-conflict. :-) Ealdgyth, thanks for reviewing this – I greatly appreciate it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Really appreciate it, V. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.