Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borodino-class battlecruiser/archive2


 * 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2018.

Borodino-class battlecruiser

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Construction of the Borodino-class battlecruisers by the Imperial Russian Navy began before World War I, but the war prevented delivery of components ordered from abroad and construction was abandoned. After the Russian Civil War was over in 1922, one ship was considered for conversion into an aircraft carrier, but this was rejected and all four ships were scrapped. The article failed a FAC back in '10, but it's been recently reworked by me and kindly copyedited by to bring it up to standard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi
I'm gathering that this check is on source formatting alone, in which case we'll still need a check for reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * All clear here. You don't need to see his identification. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. I gather that your sourcing tool is working well?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As you know, the script is completely irrelevant and useless for articles which do not employ templates. I have already opened up a can of Lingzhi rant on Tim riley this week; don't make me come back there! ... oh wait, yours has cite templates in the bibliography but no sfn.. yeas, the script says your bibliography is ok and my MSWord sort plus eyeballing each item one by one says your references are ok too. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot that it only works on sfn. ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * works on cite book etc too. Cheers Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We have consensus to promote so I've checked the sources myself and see no prima facie issues with reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:NEP5224Izmail.JPG: what was the date of the original publication?
 * 2003 or there abouts. Deleted. Pity, though, that I can't find any out-of-copyright line drawings to substitute for this.
 * File:IzmailConstruction.jpg: the FUR for this image is not very strong, the fair-use tag is incorrect ('unique historic images' is intended primarily for cases where the image itself, not just the thing pictured, is historic), and is any further information available about its provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a plethora of these images all over the net, but I've been unable to determine the provenance of any of them. But I'd suspect that most of them came from Russian-language books. Which, of course, does nothing to to prove publication before 1917. So what FUR tag would you suggest? I haven't worked with any of them for a half-decade or more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * non-free fair use would be better, with a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Support Just a few comments
 * The link from the article talk page to the FAC nom doesn't seem to be working right.
 * "with orders and some components had to be ordered from abroad" order/ordered
 * I'm not sure what you mean here.
 * Perhaps find another word to avoid the close near-repetition.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, light dawns!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "increasing the calibre of their guns in their battleships.[3]" I would change the first "their" to "the".
 * Agreed.
 * "The design of the Borodinos armour was similar in construction to that of the Ganguts" I am thinking there needs to be an apostrophe somewhere.
 * Concur.
 * Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
 * I spy a few duplicate links
 * I made a few tweaks - see if they suit. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They look fine. And I could've sworn that I'd cleaned up all the dup links before the nom! Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments – note that you may not have answers to all of these, as they might just not be in the sources.
 * Is there a reason that you've written the specifications in a tense that sounds like the ships were completed? :-)
 * Two reasons, they were built, albeit not finished, and that's the tense that McLaughlin uses.
 * Hmm. I'm looking at lines like "The ships' primary armament consisted of ...", even though the turrets (and rangefinders!) were never actually fitted.
 * Where are you drawing the line between design and development vs. construction? Some overlap there.
 * That's a fair cop, so I've moved the bit about the foreign delivery problem to the construction section.
 * Do you have any information on the rejected designs?
 * Only a little.
 * Why did it take so long for Izmail to be scrapped?
 * Probably because she was the one nearest to completion and thus would have been the cheapest to finish, but that's not stated anywhere.
 * "" – was this before or after the appropriation? I'm assuming after, given the need to raid money intended for the cruisers, but you should make this more clear.
 * The preceding sentence says that the Duma approved the budget before the design was finalized, so that seems clear enough.
 * "" – were aforementioned foreign components the only reason for the delay in the guns?
 * McLaughlin says that many parts for the turrets were foreign, including some of the guns, but also mentions shortages of steel for the armour.
 * "" – when was this? Post-war completion plans made during the war?
 * Clarified, but they knew by 1915 that they couldn't be finished during the war.
 * "" – when?
 * Clarified.
 * "" – was this because of the communist revolution? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably, but not stated. Thanks for the review; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good, Sturm. I made a few more copyedits and am now happy to support this, my one remaining minor grammatical point above notwithstanding. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Looking back on the first FAC, the two editors who opposed are still active. I wonder if anyone has asked or  to have a look? I think it's only fair that they are given a chance to look. Sarastro (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Doing that now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Oppose from Eric Corbett. Much better than the first version I reviewed. I remain surprised that such a lot can be written about a class of ships that were never built, but there are still some things that need to be sorted out.
 * " The Naval General Staff issued a new specification on 1 July 1911 by the Naval General Staff ..." What on earth does that mean?
 * Heh, makes two of us.
 * "The beginning of World War I in 1914 caused further delays ..." We were told in the the previous sentence that World War I broke out in August 1914, so why the repetition?
 * Good point.
 * "The design of the Borodinos' armour was similar in construction to that of the Ganguts and therefore needed to modified ..."
 * I'm not sure what the problem is here.
 * "needed to be modified"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course. Thanks, Eric.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm finding it difficult to reconcile "The main gun turrets had sides 300 millimetres thick with 150-millimetre roofs ..." with "Her turrets were not expected to be completed until 1919 ...", and in fact were never completed.
 * Good point, although I'll point out that they're one of the few things that we specifically know that weren't completed.
 * "Four proposals were made with various changes to the turrets' armour scheme, but none were accepted, not least because the prospects of actually acquiring such guns were minimal." I don't understand the conjunction of the turrets' armour with the availability of guns.
 * Probably too much detail, trimmed.
 * "Domestic industry was incapable of building such large guns and they were not able to purchase the guns from any foreign company." "They" refers in that sentence to domestic industry, which doesn't make sense.
 * Agreed.
 * "For example, the gun turrets rested on 203 mm (8 in) roller bearings made in Germany, but attempts to order replacements ...". Why did they need replacements?
 * Clarified.
 * In the Construction section the first paragraph has "43 percent", but the third paragraph has "65%" and "36%".
 * Good catch.
 * "Various plans were made for the post-war completion of the ships by the Naval General Staff and the Main Administration of Shipbuilding ...". I doubt that either the Naval General Staff or the Main Administration of Shipbuilding were to actually complete the ships, as this sentence is suggesting.
 * Clarified.
 * Overall I have a fundamental problem with this article, which is that I'm never sure whether what's being discussed is what was actually built or what was planned to be built. This is such a fundamental issue that I don't think it can be addressed within the timeframe of this review, hence my opposition to this article's promotion. Eric   Corbett  00:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, McLaughlin's chapter, which is the primary source for this article, is almost entirely written in past tense, not conditional, so that's what I generally used, since it's virtually impossible to know what parts of the ships were actually finished. I'm not sure that anything can be done other than to put the few things that we know weren't finished into conditional form as I've already done. Happy to take suggestions though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll buy that. I've now struck my oppose. Eric   Corbett  14:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.