Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borodino class battlecruiser/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:02, 11 December 2010.

Borodino class battlecruiser

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

These battlecruisers were laid down before the start of World War I, but the war and the subsequent internal unrest disrupted their construction and they were never completed. The Soviets contemplated several different uses for the incomplete hulls, but eventually scrapped all of them before World War II. This article passed a MilHist ACR at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Borodino class battlecruiser and meets the criteria for FA, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've requested a copyedit from the GOCE.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which has been completed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments 2c is good. I want to go over to Template talk:Citation/Core and log yet another bug, this time with their handling of the volume parameter for books and works in collection... Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I think that this comprehensive, well written and well sourced article meets the FA criteria. The only thing I'd note for improvement is the very minor point that the state Annapolis is located in is missing from the publishing details of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1906–1922. but included for the other two Naval Institute Press books. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch, Nick; fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments in the Design and development section it is mentioned that the armament increased to nine 14-inch however there's no mention of how the original design was intended to be armed.
 * Added.
 * It is also said that there was a a (false) rumor that the Germans were increasing the caliber of their guns, does that refer to German battleships or battlecruisers?
 * Not specified.
 * In this same paragraph it might be useful to mention the location of the Admiralty Works when they are first mentioned.
 * Done.
 * Two paragraphs later the article mentions trials of the Gangut-class battleships' armor scheme and subsequent changes to the Borodino class armor scheme, does that imply that both armor schemes were identical? If so, that should be mentioned.
 * They were different, but shared some characteristics which had to be modified.
 * Then that fact should be mentioned. --Victor12 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking for, but that's already specified in the paragraph.
 * In the Propulsion section the Franco Russian Works are mentioned, where were those located?
 * Done.
 * The Fire control section is quite short, maybe it should be merged with the Armament section.
 * I disagree.
 * In the Construction section, is there a particular reason for the difference between the laid down date and the beginning of actual work?
 * Laying down the keel was a ceremonious occasion in the Russian Navy, not necessarily connected with the beginning of construction.
 * What I meant is why was construction postponed? Lack of resources? --Victor12 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "No actual work" did not necessarily mean "nothing at all". Before building the hull, they had to have steel rolled, cut and delivered. Before ordering steel, they had to have at least some working drawings - Design and development explains that it wasn't a textbook smooth process. Anyway, delay of only four months (Dec 1912 - Mar 1913) was lightning fast by Russian standards. East of Borschov 05:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence The condition of the ships was assessed on 28 April 1917, but in some respects the situation was worse than shown is not clear, what was shown?
 * It's shown in the table.
 * The table in the next section, three paragraphs below? The reader should be pointed in that direction. --Victor12 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * There's no mention of the Russian Revolution in this section so terms like "provisional government", "Congress of Shipyard Workers" and "Soviet Supreme Naval College" lack the necessary context to understand them. Some rewriting it needed here. --Victor12 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A mention of the February Revolution suffices, I think. Thanks for your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think the text is not clear enough in this section. Three different organizations are mentioned in this paragraph as deciding the future of the ships. There should be some explanation as to why were they involved in this process. --Victor12 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no further information on the exact duties of any of these organizations, other than the government, which is self-evident.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Russian Provisional Government - link added;
 * Congress of Shipyard Workers - was just a trade union conference that pressed the govt to "give us jobs, give us food". It shouldn't be capitalized (not an organization's name), or should it?
 * The Soviet Supreme Naval College (Верховная морская коллегия) was a temporary commission of the newborn Soviet military. It's full name initially was Supreme Naval Commission on reforming the former Ministry of the Navy. The Communists took over the former Ministry, but could not actually control its bureaucracy, so they brought Pavel Dybenko and his cutthroats to make it work (well, it didn't but it's a whole different story). The Commission was created Oct. 26, 1917; on Feb. 22, 1918 it became the College of the Comissariat of the Navy. East of Borschov 08:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Heavy reliance on McLaughlin, but the article looks fantastically complete for a Soviet and never-finished class, so no quibbles from me.
 * "General characteristics" could be its own section.
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 32,500 ton BC -> 22,000 CV is a big drop. Where would the savings have come from, aside from the lack of turrets (and possibly barbettes)? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like mostly armor - forex, the belt would have gone from over 9 inches down to 3. That alone is a considerable savings in weight. Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, that's what I get for just skimming the article. A further thought: watch your conversions. You have "long tons (mt conversion)" followed by "metric tons (lt conversion)" towards the end. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole issue is confusing. The Tsarist Navy was beginning to convert to metric measurements when WWI began, hence the long tons and mm of armor and the Soviets went completely to metric. I've just used the measurements as they're provided in my sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Image review concerns for use of non-free File:IzmailLaunching.png and File:IzmailConstruction.jpg : Why do we need two non-free photographs of an unfinished hull (that does not help much to visualise the intended design)? Would a schematic of the ship, such as this one from (have to find out which Russian book), not serve instead? Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't really looked outside Wiki for images, but I'd be happy to swap out both of the existing ones for that one once you find out what book it was in. I'll delete one of them now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * www.steelnavy.com/N&H12.htm is a copy-violation site (scans without context, hence not directly linking here): the scans are of a French publication Navires & Histoire. Of particular note is www.steelnavy.com/images/N&H12/NEP5224Izmail.JPG by Frederic Stahl in his "The Navy of the NEP".  Would this be a better image?  Jappalang (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I replaced the image with the one from steelnavy.com with appropriate NFUR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No issue with the above as the sole image in the article; it serves its purpose and fulfills the WP:NFCC. Jappalang (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

-- Aeonx (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Any change additional images could be used to illustrate the Class-design? I noticed there are 7 images on Commons
 * All of those images on Commons are not sourced and of dubious copyright status. That said, I'm looking to replace the one I have with another one that shows the overall layout.
 * I'm not an experienced editor, but I'm not convinced regarding: Compare_Criteria_Good_v._Featured.
 * Are these your issues below?
 * OCLC numbers for the book sources?
 * Unneeded, IMO, when ISBNs are provided.
 * Are there available citations available online? Either as web citations or url links to book or other source references ? Google Books for example?
 * Most of my recent sources have only snippets available and it's not been worth my time to search out the ones that aren't.
 * Some page citations could be added repeated at the end of sentences to be more clear, rather than at the end of several sentences.
 * My policy to is to consolidate most citations to the same source at the end of a paragraph to avoid the sight of little blue numbers spattered throughout the text. In your example below, the cite given only covers two pages, not too difficult to find.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * for example, "No further proposals were made to complete Izmail as a battlecruiser, but she was almost converted into an aircraft carrier."


 * I still can't support this yet. I'm primarily concerned with the lack of images and the lack of Online/PD references & verifiability without McLaughlin.
 * It's fine to refer to McLaughlin throughout the whole article, but there are some online references available; and I'd like to see them used, or at least listed as Further reading.
 * For example, see: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_14-52_mk6.htm for details on the 14" gun; I don't see any harm in using more references; and in this case; it's at least one that someone can click on and find out more information. Aeonx (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to pull all references to Navweaps.com as it has not been deemed "highly reliable" yet. It would have been quite useful for the details that I ordinarily include on the ships' armament. One of these days I'll write an article on the Model 1913 gun so that I can use Navweaps.com to my heart's content. Until then, however... And what "highly reliable" online sources are there on these ships? I haven't been able to find any as the qualifications for highly reliable are so strict as to eliminate most all online sources for warships. As for photos, every one that I've been able to find has been non-free use and I can't use more than one of them except under extraordinary circumstances.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments

Looking good, however:
 * In the hatnote, the Borodino class...
 * Good catch.
 * I don't know if this is standard or not, but in the infobox: "Preceeded by: N/A; first battlecruiser authorized. or similar, instead of a concise but curt None. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't see a need for this.
 * I won't oppose on these grounds, but four books seems slightly on the low side.
 * They were never finished and not much has been written on them in English.
 * The first sentence "(also referred to as Izamil class)" → "(also referred to as the Izamil class)" WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch.
 * Are there any articles on the ships themselves? If so, add links to the ship table. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, no individual ship articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments

Enjoyed it, particularly the links in with the wider political context. A couple of bits that stand out to me as a distinctly non-naval person (!) though. Would Support with those answered:


 * "vitals" : not linked, and not obvious what they are (I'm guessing engine rooms and the magazine and so on?).
 * Never really thought that it needed a link. Vitals=important stuff, including everything you mentioned.
 * Treat as a personal comment rather than a condition for my support, but if you expanded the wording slightly and said "the vital parts of the ship" or something like that, it might read easier for a non-expert. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good compromise, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * " The trials employed the old pre-dreadnought battleship Chesma, modified with armor protection identical to that used by the Gangut-class battleships then under construction." My assumption when I first read this was that the trials had involved sailing and nautical handling; later on I began to suspect that they had been firing at the Chesma and testing the armour that way? It might be worth clarifying what these trials were.
 * See how it reads now.
 * Like it. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "and were designed to be forced to a total" : is there a non-technical way of saying this? ("in a crisis could be called upon to produce"? "could be made to produce"?)
 * I've changed forced to pushed. Does that work for you?
 * Works for me. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "a progresss review " sp. - 3 sss's
 * Good catch
 * "including modifying the turrets to load at a fixed angle of 4° " - it sounds relevant, but I don't know why: could the sentence explain why its significant? (similar to the bit on the funnels, which explains the changes)
 * Fixed loading reduces the time required to load, but adds time needed to re-lay the guns on the target. I'm not sure that I can work it into the sentence.
 * I agree, it would strain the sentence. Could it go in a footnote? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more complicated that I thought and the main advantage seems to be reduced weight and complexity of the loading gear, which I've added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "although it would have taken at least two years to build all of Izmail's turrets, if enough guns had been available." "even if" might read better?
 * Agreed.
 * "a double turret of which actually weighed slightly less than a triple 14-inch turret. " the "actually" implies that this was unusual - wasn't obvious to me why (admittedly because I know nothing about turrets!)
 * Not that unusual, deleted the actually.
 * "Four proposals were made with various changes to the armor scheme," to the armour scheme of the turrets, rather than the ship itself?
 * Yes, fixed.
 * "too large and unwieldy" - I'm not doubting the source, but why would a cargo ship or an oil barge need to be "wieldy" (or nimble etc.)? Is unwieldy really the right word here? (or is it that they'd be too big for harbours etc.?)
 * Paraphrasing from my source. I don't know why they thought that, but most oil tankers of the period were far smaller, often between 5-10,000 tons in size. Thanks for looking over the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hchc2009 (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob's, enjoyed doing so. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Now Support. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments In general, well-written, but sentences tend to be long, and could benefit from a few commas. Also, I'm a bit concerned that it relies so heavily on one source, McLaughlin. Were there no others available? Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Query: has an independent (non-ship) person spotchecked for jargon, WP:V, and WP:COPYVIO? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-ships people have supported it and I'd expect that they would have pointed out any jargon issues. Any one can check for WP:V and copyvio, but I don't know if anyone has.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a "ship person," but I don't see why that would discredit me from checking for the latter two issues. We're not a cabal, and I resent any implication that we give preference to each other at the expense of an article's quality. WP:V looks to be satisfied, though I wonder if there is any relevant material in Rohwer, and random checking of sentences against snippet view on Google Books produced nothing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of mentions of the plan to convert Izmail to a carrier in '25, but nothing of real significance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be appreciated if you do that check, but I believe the past concern was wholesale use of PD sources in ship articles, which ship people seem to support, while others don't, which is why I requested other eyes. Alternately, the nominator could disclose if there is any of that here, since I haven't glanced at the article yet. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you would have checked, there are four books cited, none of which are in the public domain. The PD controversy came from the copying of DANFS, which only covers American ships. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, I don't typically go read every article when I'm first scanning FACs to see where they stand; I do that once everything is in place. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that, but if you're going to make a comment on public domain text, it literally takes ten seconds to look at the sources and determine it for yourself. Also, saying "WP:V" is really general – more specific directions would be appreciated in the future. I don't mean this in a negative way, just as general thoughts on what you are doing, because I do realize FAC takes a lot of time to go through on any given day. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd echo Sturmvogel's point about non-ships people above; as a non-ships person I've had a look over it for jargon (see above comments for a list of points raised and dealt with). Hchc2009 (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the jargon check, appreciated! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "The four Borodino class battlecruisers (also referred to as the Izmail class) of the Imperial Russian Navy were all laid down in December 1912[Note 1] at Saint Petersburg for service with the Baltic Fleet." - this is an odd way to start an article; one should first explain what they were, then explain when they were laid down etc. For example, "The Borodino class were a  group of four battlecruisers commissioned by the Imperial Russian Navy before World War I but never completed. Also referred to as Izmail class, they were laid down in December 1912[Note 1] at Saint Petersburg for service with the Baltic Fleet."
 * I like most of your formulation, but the last phrase in the first sentence is redundant as the rest of the lede talks about that they were never completed.
 * "Initially the Naval General Staff wanted a ship with high speed (28 knots, 52 km/h; 32 mph), 12-inch (305 mm) guns, and limited protection (a waterline belt of 190 mm or 7.5 in); the Tsar approved construction of four such ships on 5 May 1911, but the Duma session ended before they could be voted on." - I like semicolons, but this sentence is pretty long, and could probably be split in two at the semi-colon.
 * I think splitting it would be a bad idea. I could swap the semi-colon for an "and" if you think that it would help.
 * replacing the semi-colon with "and" would be even worse. Why do you think splitting this long sentence at the semi-colon is a bad idea? Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The "initially" at the beginning of the sentence implies that there's a "but" later on. Splitting the sentence loses that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think splitting in two would be easier on the reader, who will understand what the "but" is referring to, but it's not a big issue. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Naval Ministry solicited bids from 23 shipbuilders, " - this should be the start of a new paragraph.
 * Agreed
 * "the deadline was extended by an extra month." - I think you mean "the deadline was extended by a month" - otherwise, you're implying it was extended by two months.
 * Fixed
 * "triple turrets" "three turrets" - I assume these are the same; perhaps a little explanation as to what this means, as there's no handy wikilink.
 * Linked gun turret.
 * Thanks, but what is a "triple turret"? This seems like a bit of naval jargon. Is it three turrets side-by-side? In some other arrangement? Something else? Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Triple gun turret was the original wording; I've hyphenated it to show that it means three guns per turret.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still a bit obscure, that will have to do, I guess. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "45.5 million rubles for each ship" - it would be nice to know what these and other figures were worth in today's currencies (dollars or euros).
 * It would, but the inflation calculator doesn't deal with anything but dollars or pounds.
 * Well, it would be nice if you could find a source that estimates the cost today, but... Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "The first pair was to be ready... and the other two... " - the phrases should be parallel - "first pair"-"second pair" or "first two"-"second two".
 * Done.
 * "plus the delays imposed by the large number of ship orders already in hand" - not sure what this means. Can you explain?
 * Umm, ran out of capacity?
 * Is that how the source explains it? Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Essentially, yes. There's a comment that the Russian shipyards simply had too much on their plate with orders for smaller ships that could be finished mroe quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K., a footnote explaining exactly would be extremely helpful - I think that's all that's left for me. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "A pair of casemates were situated on each side" - this implies two casemates on each side; is that what you mean?
 * On each side of the three rear turrets, yes, plus the six casemates on each side near the forward turret.
 * McLaughlin is the only substantial source in English on these ships and I don't read Russian where there's a little more material. Thanks for looking it over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The topic of Russian ships is does not receive a lot of scholarly attention. The formation of the Soviet Union and the Cold War limited most works to basic facts and conjectures (G&D in Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War II, published 1985, said something like "information on Russian ships is quite limited" due to that), and only now are some of the records being opened for study. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that will have to do, then. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not too happy with the writing on this one so far. Could have used a peer review, perhaps. I see the GA review was done by a ships person with no substantive feedback on the writing; this can make it a challenge to weed out jargon and so on. Not checked for copyvio, as none of the sources are accessible to me. Examples of writing problems:
 * Obviously you failed to note that it gotten a thorough review at ACR and needed very little work on jargon, as non-specialist reviewers such as Hchc2009 noted very few issues with such here.
 * "The start of World War I slowed their construction still further" What is still doing?
 * Fixed, by clarifying that the delays began when they had to revised the armor scheme after the ships had begun construction.
 * Many perplexing article and preposition choices, even in the lead (ex. why "useful for the war effort" and not useful to? The "for" construction normally precedes a gerund, such as "useful for drinking")
 * The first sentence of Design and Development is a bear... many ideas expressed there, not all clearly related. As written, it's unclear if you are building a causal relationship between Admiral Tōgō's action and the ship request, or just stating it incidentally.
 * Seems pretty clear to me that there was a causal relation between the design and what Togo did to the Russian fleet at Tsushima.
 * "Preliminary bids for these ships were solicited from private builders" The narrative grows confusing here. How were the bids solicited when there was never a vote to approve them?
 * Probably because the bids bound neither side to anything.
 * "The Russian Navy believed that widely separating the main gun magazines improved survivability and that the open sighting hoods on their turrets prevented superfiring turrets from firing their guns over the lower turret." Here I am completely lost as a general reader. I could discover what "magazines" are in this context, but you've said nothing thus far about their being widely separated. What does that mean? Far apart from each other? This sentence should follow a sentence where you describe that meaning, how far apart they were, etc. "Survivability" is jargon—I have no clues as to what that could mean here. The rest, I'm afraid is impossible to follow.
 * You may have something here about the distribution of the turrets not being properly set up. Lemme think about it. Nobody else thought survivability is jargon. It's a form of survivable, something most every reader can understand.
 * I understand the definition of the word. What I'm saying is that I don't understand how it is applied here. Survivability of what? The magazines, the guns, or the whole ship? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't noticed your responses in the barrage of other responses over the last week. OK, now I understand what you had an issue with. Clarified by referring to the survivability of the ship.
 * Next, you're writing about the bids again, after the lone sentence about it in the preceding paragraph. They were rejected for not meeting which criteria? The original or revised?
 * Whole new set of bids to the new specification. I've clarified it; see how it works for you.
 * You mention a four-turret design, but previously you wrote the specs called for nine turrets.
 * Not at all, read it again. I said three triple gun turrets.
 * I quote: "armament increased to nine 14-inch (356 mm) guns in non-superfiring triple-gun turrets". It's clearly confusing, since I read it as "nine" when you really meant to say "three groups of three". What you said just above (three triple gun turrets) is actually much better. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, clarified it with three non-superfiring triple-gun turrets.
 * In the third para, you mention that the changed specs resulted in higher costs—I thought they were trying to lower costs per the first para.
 * Read the second paragraph again, it quite clearly says that the specifications were revised by adding a fourth turret in the middle of the bid process and that the Duma approved the ships before the fourth turret was added to the design.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that addresses the issue of cost, I'm sorry. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Duma approved the design in May before the design was finalized in September with an extra turret added. All that extra steel costs more and the Russians had to scrounge money from other projects to pay for the Borodinos. All of which is spelled out in the third para.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I stopped reading here, but suffice it to say that I found it very confusing. I am very sorry to say so, because you have put a lot of work into it. I think it desperately needs a thorough copy-edit from a non-specialist. Not just a light dusting, either—someone needs to dig in a look at sentence structure, organization, and so on. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  05:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I never checked, to be honest. I don't think that it needs a link and it isn't worth my time to see if such a link exists. If your opposition is predicated on such picayune details as a link for a term that I don't think needs linking then we're done here. You've made some helpful comments, but this sort of shit is a waste of my time. At least AndyWalsh, for all that I disagree with his comments, has more substantial issues to base his oppose upon than trivial stuff like links. All of which you could have dealt with yourself if you thought that they were so important. WP:Be Bold ring a bell?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose Weak Support I really like this article, but I seriously think it isn't really ready yet. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whose oppose this is: will the nominator please attach a sig up here? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Curious, since you made no such comments earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but now, every time I read the article I get some more objections/comments. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Have I addressed your concerns to your satisfaction below?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some, and more have come.
 * That's much better. Another FA addition to OMT is coming. Tom would be proud. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Does "(false) rumour that the Germans..." really need to be parenthesized?
 * No.
 * First World War → World War I, is standard.
 * I've been informed that it's a Britishism.
 * I use "First World War" in my articles as well, doesn't seem like this is a big deal. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with the more experienced, objection withdrawn.
 * List the reason why Germany wouldn't make the bearings first, not a sentence later for the turbines.
 * The first mention is the Soviets searching for new sources, not about them being seized like the turbines were.
 * Why wouldn't the Germans make them?
 * Huh? The Germans made the bearings before the war and wouldn't make them after the war began. Seems fairly logical.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Use "draught", the infobox doesn't use "draft"
 * Good catch
 * "The double bottom was 1.275 meters (4 ft 2.2 in) deep..." Wait, what does that mean? Does that mean the bottoms were 4ft apart?
 * Yes.
 * Say it. It's like some jargon to the unexperienced.
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "The ships were fitted with three Frahm anti-rolling tanks on each side to reduce their rolling motion." I'm seeing some unnecessary repetition.
 * Agreed.
 * Is there an article for the Model 1913 guns?
 * No.
 * "Four 38-calibre 64-millimeter (2.5 in) anti-aircraft guns were intended to be fitted somewhere on the upper deck with 220 rounds per gun." Somewhere? Do you have any specific info?
 * No.
 * Sources aren't always explicit and like to say that they would be "on the upper deck" etc. without specifying. For the same reason Sturm, you should be able to get away without using "somewhere." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aft of the funnel, abaft, anything except "somewhere." It doesn't sound right.
 * OK, "somewhere" deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you link to a article for "truncated cones?"
 * No.
 * Oh really. That's why I'm opposing. You can't even find this?
 * Yes it does. If you would like, I could have given you some even better comments, concerning breadth of sources. My GA has more references than this. Can't you find anything else, another book maybe? If there is all this little trivial stuff still in here, too, you obviously didn't spend a lot of time on it. I'm sorry if I'm getting into a disagreement, but if you didn't even spend enough time to clean those out, how can we know you took care of the other things? Small grammatical details are also part of the citeria for FA, FYI and good links should be too, IMHO.
 * Again, an oppose based on this is not actionable. The subject of the article, a ship in the waning days of the Russia flowing into the Soviet Union, does not lend itself to scholarly sources (ie not conjecture and hypotheses) because sources were kept secret until recently. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've got stubs with more sources. So what? You're a ships guy, if you can find further detailed references in English, dated after the end of the Cold War, please do so and I'll happily evaluate what they've got to say. And you can beat me over the head with something that I missed. My maritime library is linked on my userpage so you don't waste time looking for books I've already got.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you seriously do, your elves must be getting lazy, not even submitting those for B-class. And I'll be beating the brush of my library system and Google Books. And if I find one, I will beat you over the head if you want me to.
 * The Cup pretty well burnt me out and my output has dropped tremendously. I've built a number of stubs that have an infobox, one line of text and a full list of refs so I can expand them somepoint in the future.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "No further proposals were made to complete Izmail as a battlecruiser, but she was almost converted into an aircraft carrier." → "No further proposals were made to complete Izmail as a battlecruiser, but proposals were made to convert her into an aircraft carrier."
 * I dislike the repetition of "proposals" in your formulation.
 * I dunno, I just don't like the "almost." It sounds a little informal.
 * →"Although no further proposals were made to complete Izmail as a battlecruiser, some were made to convert her into an aircraft carrier."
 * Doesn't thrill me either. I could change almost to nearly if that helps any.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Deal.
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "The turbines were powered by 25 triangular Yarrow water-tube boilers with a working pressure of 17 kg/cm2 (1,667 kPa; 242 psi)." What is a triangular boiler? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Beats me, some variety of water-tube boiler.
 * Can you look it up, it might be confusing. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's best dealt with in the water-tube boiler article, which is outside my competency.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that's not in the purview of this article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is, but link to the Yarrow section of the article instead of the article proper.
 * The curious are perfectly capable on hitting the link on the TOC for the section on Yarrow. They don't need to be spoonfed everything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't sufficient. Some are still WikiBabes, unknown to the capabilities of the TOC Force Face-wink.svg. Neither do you need to be lazy and not spoonfeed them when neccessary.718smiley.svg
 * Pretty much everybody on the net can recognize a link when they see it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever, I already did it.
 * Infobox image is dark, can you fix. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Still a tad dark, and there is now a yellow strip down the right side (glare?). WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've hit the limit on my image manipulation skills.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Get somebody else to do it for you. It shouldn't be hard with a good-sized parcel of determination.
 * Sorry, determination for inappropriate requests is lacking.
 * Um, but what does inappropriate mean in this context? I definitely can't because I have a ban on installing programs onto my computer, that includes photo-editing software. Maybe Mono? He created the OMT banner, as I recall.
 * It's undoubtedly fixable, but I don't believe that it's my responsibility to do so in a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can easily fix it, but... are we allowed to do this with a non-free image? If we are, I'm happy to clean it up. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you could that would be great. You can do anything you like to the image, free or non-free, but you have to give credit to the original artist/source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See if you prefer the version I've just uploaded. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob's. Happy to help| Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looking good.
 * "At full load, 80 rounds per gun were carried." In the turret proper, barbette or magazine?
 * Likely all in the magazine, as far as I know no dreadnought of any nation carried shells or powder anywhere other than in the magazine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a portion was carried combat-ready in the turret or handling rooms in the barbette. Check, will ya?
 * In combat is different; other than that storage was likely in the magazines. I've got nothing that says different, remember that the ships were never finished.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Section Protection needs inline citations after the sentences that state that Krupp armor was used and the thicknesses of the armor, not at the end of the paragraph.
 * Why? They're not extraordinary claims and the same cite applies to the whole para.
 * Make that clear. It doesn't look like it.
 * "...Army being strongly opposed to spending additional money on naval projects." You and I probably know why, but the average reader doesn't. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. The reason seems perfectly clear to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Read carefully what I said. It might appear perfectly clear to you and me, but probably not to the average electrican or layman. Explain why, maybe, or add a link to an article that explains. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, it's pretty plain that the Army didn't want money spent on the Navy lest said money come out of the Army's pocket.
 * "In the meantime, however, full-scale armor trials had revealed serious weaknesses in the protection scheme." What weaknesses? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the weakness are described by the list of what changes had to be made, but you may have a valid point if I can think of a good way to rephrase that bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can figure out is that they figured a shell could punch through the armor they've already got and blast the ship to pieces. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't nearly that simple. The armor wasn't strongly enough supported and plates were displaced during the Chesma trials by hits. So they reinforced the supporting structure and locked the plates together to better distribute the shock of impact.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you state that? Some experts might want to know what happened.
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing from your non-free image use rationale for the infobox image that you don't have any other images, do you? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, nothing free use.
 * Grammatical picayunes fixed, please revert if unwanted. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 04:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No need, they're fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This says (all) the ships were laid down in 1913, not 1912.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a naval reference, probably picked up the date from Breyer or somesuch.
 * Agreed, plus general encyclopedias (especially ones edited by Tucker) are not suitable as references for specific information like this, see WP:TERTIARY. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Armored belt, 13 inches, 21 5.1 inch guns. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but the wrong armor thickness and number of 130-mm guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Is it because it differs with McLaughlin? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 02:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Partially, but 13 inches of belt armor puts it in firmly in the battleship category for that period and that's not what the Russians were interested in. Contemporary accounts, especially one covering developments in a foreign country must always be regarded warily when it comes to stats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But the number of 130-mm guns? 21 is quite a few, even the Iowas had more secondaries. That's the most I ever heard from anybody for any capital ship. But still, could you check it out? Also, is it possible that the ship was longer or had more machinery than usual to attain their 26.5 kn top speed? The North Carolina/South Dakotas had even more belt armor, but were able to go faster. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the diagram, they had a dozen 130-mm guns on each side. The ships were enormous and would have been the among the largest in the world at full load if they'd been finished. They were longer than HMS Tiger (1913) for example. They were designed from the beginning to reach that speed so they were larger, longer and had more horsepower than any other Russian ships built thus far.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, but is it possible that the diagram is incorrect? maybe the disparity is an extra four side guns and one gun on the stem or stern ommitted? Can you explain the disparity? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 04:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't need to explain it, all of my modern sources say 24 guns. See my comment above about period sources on foreign ships. Don't forget to sign after your oppose above, as SandyGeorgia, one of the FAC delegates, requested.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a 1915 source written in the middle of a war (see fog of war). In most cases, more modern scholarship overrides older works, and I see no reason to make an exception here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at least for now, on the basis of 1a. I agree with Andy Walsh's comments above; someone needs to go through and copyedit the whole article. A few examples:
 * "The Borodino class were ..... Since when was "class" a plural noun?
 * Fixed
 * "... the Tsar approved construction of four such ships on 5 May 1911, but the Duma session ended before they could be voted on." The Duma wasn't going to vote on the ships (they) but on the construction of the ships (it).
 * Fixed.
 * "A new specification was issued on 1 July 1911 for a design with a speed of only 26.5 knots (49.1 km/h; 30.5 mph) while the armor was increased to 254 mm (10 in) and the armament increased to nine 14-inch (356 mm) guns in three non-superfiring triple-gun turrets,[2] based on a false rumor that the Germans were increasing the caliber of their guns." That's rather a rambling sentence with a number of problems. It's too long for one thing, and designs don't have speed. "While" isn't right here either, as that implies sopme degree of simultaneity.
 * Why doesn't "while" work? Both changes were made at the same time. Split the sentence.
 * No, what's being linked here is the issue of a new specification (with a reduced design speed) and an increase in the armor. Clearly both could not have happened at the same time. Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's not necessarily a link between the reduced speed and increased armor. It worked out this way because the Navy wasn't willing to pay for both, but it could certainly have done so if the money had been available.
 * "... and that the open sighting hoods on their turrets prevented superfiring turrets from firing their guns over the lower turret". I have no idea what any of that means. "Open sighting hoods"? "Superfiring turrets"?
 * Superfiring is linked. Clarified the rest. How does it read now?
 * "The gun turrets had the most parts ordered abroad and had the greatest problems". Rather awkwardly written.
 * Deleted as not really necessary.
 * "These were divided among four compartments on the platform deck, two each forward and aft of the machinery. These powered the complex electrical system ...".
 * Clarified.
 * "Eighteen torpedoes were carried for them." Carried for the torpedoe tubes? Seems like very strange phrasing.
 * Substituted provided for carried.
 * "50 mm plates protected the gun ports and 25 mm bulkheads separated each gun." A sentence ought not to start with a number.
 * Not any rule I'm familiar with, but I've rephrased it.
 * The MoS very clearly says "Render as words numbers that begin sentences. However, it is often better to recast the sentence so that it does not start with a number." Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "... a double turret of which weighed slightly less than a triple 14-inch turret." Why "of which"?
 * Rephrased.
 * OK, what else?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What's next is that you or someone else ought to look through the article for similar problems, as I only gave a few examples. Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It had a thorough copyedit at ACR, but you and AndyWalsh parse things much differently. So I'm not at all sure that asking somebody else to re-copyedit it will catch the things that you two find objectionable.
 * It needs to be done though, at least in my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For instance, isn't there a "the" missing in "Also referred to as Izmail class"?
 * Yes.
 * "The incomplete hulls were later sold for scrap by the Soviet Union". They could hardly have been sold sooner.
 * Later was meant to reference the Soviet plans to finish the ships, which didn't happen, and they were sold after those plans fell through.
 * "The outbreak of the Russian Revolution in 1917 put a stop to their construction". It wasn't the outbreak of the revolution that halted their construction, it was the revolution.
 * True.
 * "... but this plan was later cancelled as a result of political maneuvering by the Red Army". Couldn't have have been cancelled sooner.
 * Related to the first usage.
 * "... the bids proved to be very high, enough so that the requirements were reconsidered". "Enough so that" is very awkward.
 * Any suggested rephrasing? Because all I'm coming up with is "which forced reconsideration of the requirements as too ambitious", which I'm not that fond of.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is "Borodino" not italicised in the infobox image caption?
 * Fixed.
 * you are using British-style dates; do you want to use British-style spelling (armour)? -- Diannaa (Talk) 19:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should already be in BritEnglish unless I've missed a few words, which is always possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The only one that jumps out at me is armor/armour; I will see if I can spot any others. -- Diannaa (Talk) 20:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have finished my copy edits. User:Tagishsimon helped -- Diannaa (Talk) 15:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you both very much.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: Maintaining my opposition. While I appreciate the superficial copyedit, it needs more thorough work on structure and narrative as I mentioned previously. For example, the Construction section was barely touched, and it needs a lot of work:
 * The writing (partly through a propensity for passive voice) obscures or eliminates needed information. For example, read the first two paragraphs of the section. Any number of individuals or organizations are alluded to, but none are actually mentioned. Who completed the progress review? It was clear to whom that Russian industry couldn't complete the ships? Who reclassified? "A number of plans were made for the post-war completion of the ships" By whom? And so on.
 * The narrative remains confusing to me. Ex. "Three of the four ships were launched in 1915" Well, launched means put in water to go, yes? Later, you say that in 1917 the most complete ship had 65% of a hull. It sounds impossible to me. I understand that there is probably a logical explanation underlying it that a ship person would take for granted, but it's not accessible to the general reader.
 * -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The problems that you mention go beyond the scope of copy editing as the information you are looking for is not present in the article as it now stands. -- Diannaa (Talk) 20:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I diasgree with you and agree with Andy. It's important to have a clear narrative, not just to make sure that the grammar and spelling are correct. That's what copyediting is about as far as I'm concerned, which is why I have such little regard for the Guild of Copyeditors. My oppose stands as well. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will ask Dank if he has time to look at the article. -- Diannaa (Talk) 20:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.