Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes/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 SandyGeorgia 21:30, 16 June 2009.

Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes

 * Nominator(s): — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC try #2. Minas Geraes was a battleship constructed for Brazil, of all countries. The news that Brazil was constructing such a ship made many countries desirous for an alliance. However, dreadnought technology quickly outpaced the 12" guns and wing turrets of Minas Geraes, and the ship faded into disrepair and obscurity. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for a set of boo-boos with images: Naughty Ed came on my talk and admitted he made a boo-boo (and an unintentional hoodwinking) for the previous FAC, so I checked the images he pointed out and... Other images are okay. Jappalang (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * File:E Minas Geraes 1908.jpg: effectively has no source (Ponder Naval Online effectively states it as ?). Although taken at the launch of the vessel, we do not know if it is Brazilian copyright (first published in Brazil, or unpublished shot taken by Brazilian) or UK (first published in UK, or unpublished shot taken by UK).  Basically a candidate for "no license" deletion.
 * Alright; any admin, feel free to speedy it. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replaced with one of the ones below and nominated for deletion on Commons. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  06:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Minas Geraes 1909.jpg: the photographer is Harry Ord Thompson, a private photographer who lives in Northumberland. This photo is most likely covered by UK copyrights as Mr Thompson is unlikely to publish it in Brazil.  To qualify for UK public domain, Mr Thompson, to be crass, should have passed away before 1926 (70 years and avoiding the URAA cut-off).  Mr Thompson's lifespan is not available on the web, but it seems you can contact these guys, but I do not know if they do so for a price...  Of course, if the photo was verifiably published before 1923, it can be hosted on Wikipedia...
 * I have sent off a message to the people you linked too; hopefully they will respond soon. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I recieved a reply a couple days ago and forgot to post here. The UK PD is out; according to the guys you linked to, "H O Thompson was still advertising in 1939 – [their] records stop at 1940. [They] do not know when he died." We also have no indication that it was published prior to 1923... perhaps it was in a UK newspaper? Having said all of that...I replaced it already. :) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Minas Gerais after refit.jpg: should be okay if we trust Ponder Naval Online (judging that they seem quite honest with their sources) and that SDM is Serviço de Divulgação da Marinha do Brasil. I think this is okay but please attach the license (no license tag at the moment).
 * Commons:Template:Attribution-NavyofBrazil says that only images on the navy's website are ok. Is this it a problem that this image wasn't from their website (it was only taken by them?). Am I opening a second can of worms with this? :) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh boy... that is a problem... Can you access https://biblioteca.dphdm.mar.mil.br/internet/navios/cons.asp (Brazillian Navy's photo archives)?  It keeps giving me an error, but if you can access it, perhaps you might find the photo in there?
 * How about using File:E Minas Geraes 1945.jpeg? It is not a broadside view, but it is from the Brazillian Navy's site...  Jappalang (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to use that image unless I absolutely have to; it used to be in the article, and if you think the sun is bad in the actual image, try seeing it in thumbnail...
 * Poder Naval says that "On this site we use photos of public domain and release of manufacturers and official bodies" (Google translation). Perhaps this is an indication that the Brazilian Navy has released them? Otherwise, I'll have to try emailing the Brazilian Navy, but I'm not confident in that; emailed them twice regarding the name of the ship during the first FAC and got no response. —  Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt we can take that as the interpretation. Ponder might have gotten the photo from Brazilian Navy in other places (perhaps a Navy magazine).  Jappalang (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re way above: no, their photo archives give me an error too. I've replaced this image with File:E Minas Geraes 1945.jpeg. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Images currently in the article are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions These should make up for the possible loss of 2 previous images. Jappalang (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Christopher Bells' Naval Mutinies of the Twentieth Century (2003): an official Brazillian Navy photo of the ship, and a published 1910 photo of the mutineers.
 * Cassier's magazine (1909): photo of its launch uploaded
 * Popular Mechanics (Oct 1909): Drawing of the ship in comparison to five other countries' dreadnoughts
 * US Naval Intelligence's Information Concerning Some of the Principal Navies of the World (1912): not drawings, but the US Intelligence's cost estimate of $8,863,843 should be more accurate than New York Times, right? The costs for other dreadnoughts are also supplied.
 * I'm going to be away for the next few hours, but I will be working on this. Apologies to Awadewit for hoodwinking her... :-/ — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahoy there Hi Ed, that was a nice read, I've made a few tweaks which I hope you like, but "wounding the cook" strikes me as odd as a ship of that size would surely have more than one cook? Wounding a cook sounds more likely.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are probably right; I also remember that you added a comment about this to the last FAC and I forgot about it. :-) Thanks WSC! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed, do your sources give any detail re crew sizes, if so I think it would be worth adding . Also the bit about former slaves could probably benefit from a link to the Lei Áurea to explain how young some former Brazilian slaves would have been at that time.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that '"Conway's does, but I'm not sure if it would help; sure, the crew would be at x'' size at its commisioning, but 40 years later, with modernizations, less casemate guns, more AA guns etc. it would probably be very different. I don't want to give a misleading figure...
 * Oh man, that is a good link. Thanks a lot dude; I will add this in later tonight/tomorrow morning when I am on next (have to run again). — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've also tracked down a paragraph that partially explains the coffee boom and subsequent bust. I appreciate that crew size would fluctuate widely, especially when the shift from coal to oil removed the need for stokers. So if we only have one snapshot of crewsize you need to accompany it with caveats, but I do think the article should include some mention of the topic.   Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  07:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you yet again! It is a nice little para. I'll add a mention of crew size into the infobox with a note. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, In the early twenties the 4.7" guns were reduced from 22 to 4 but in the 30s "two extra 4.7 in (120 mm) guns were added (making 14 total)". I think 8 guns are unaccounted for.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are very right. Am looking into. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * Got it. The casemate guns were reduced to four; overall, the battleship still had 12. Thanks! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I've had only a quick look through. The writing looks up to standard. Some of those pics could be photoshopped—is that possible, legal, ethical? I say this for the future. I see you italicise the name of the ship in the text, but not in the title. I like it, but note that MilHist ship names are often not italicised. What's the deal with the WikiProject MilHist styleguide? Thanks and well done. Tony   (talk)  13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all three as long as you don't misrepresent/change the subject. I'm having my brother, who is way better than me with these things, take a stab at the lead and launch images. Re ship names: if you are referring to the actual title at the top ("Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes"), Mediawiki can't italicize article titles; same problem with novels like The Sword of Shannara. **Or are you thinking of ship classes like the Admiral class battlecruiser, where the class name is not a ship of the class? They aren't italicized because there is no ship name there. :-) Ship names are always italicized; so Minas Geraes-class battleship is right, but Design 1047-class battlecruiser is not&mdash;"Design 1047" was not going to be the name of a ship in that class. I believe this is why we have Sclass2?
 * My last guess is that you saw the New York Times quote. They aren't italicized there because they weren't in the actual NYT article; is it allowed for me to italicize them here on wiki? If it's not one of these three things, I do not know what you are referring too?
 * Thank you very much for the support! Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support in full confidence that the minor image snafus above will be swiftly resolved. I reviewed this at its first FAC, and the only issue I had then was with the prose. It's been improved since and now reads very nicely. I've made some minor prose changes, as it was quicker than listing them on this page; see the intermediate edit summaries for the rationales for each. As always, feel free to disagree with any change I've made. Very nice work. Steve  T • C 15:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked through every edit, had some laughs (including one at a rather bad pun). :-) Many thanks for the copyediting; all of the things you changed made the article much better. My writing is slowly improving with each article I write and get reviewed, but I wish it would improve faster! Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was something I forgot to ask: is there any reason the article title doesn't go for the simplest disambiguation, Minas Geraes (battleship) or similar? Steve  T • C 15:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SHIPNAME says that ship articles should be located at (country) (ship type) (name). Having said that, I think that the above is a plausible redirect... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, no problem! it was more curiosity than anything, as in my comfort zone of film articles we tend to go for something like Gaslight (1944 film) rather than 1994 film Gaslight; WP:SHIPNAME obviously determines that a ship's country of origin can be as important as its name, and that's fair enough. Steve  T • C 07:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's a valid concern; I'm not entirely sure why/how SHIPNAME is how it is, but I'm just following the guideline. :) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I've been through it a few times and I'm not seeing any other issues. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your previous review in the first FAC and your the copyediting. Cheers! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the title be Minas Geraes or Minas Geraes (Brazillian battleship)? Stifle (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SHIPNAME, warship articles go at (country) (type) (ship name) [see more in my above conversation with Steve]. Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Some issues: there are some strange, non-standard citation templates in use that are causing an inconsistent citation style (some have p. or pp. while others use pg.).  I don't know where those are coming from, but the citation style should be consistent.  Also, pls review and fix all image caption punctuation to conform with WP:MOS (full sentences vs. sentence fragments).  I'm also concerned that the proliferation of templates in ship articles may cause those article to run into template limits.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On it. I've removed the periods from those captions that are sentence fragments (save for the "gun trials" one, which begins as a fragment before morphing into a full sentence) and if Ed isn't around this evening I'll see what I can do about those templates that show "pg.", even if we have to get agreement to change them at source. Steve  T • C 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Steve (I tried looking up those templates at the source, but this is where it comes in handy to be an admin ... hint !!) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, Steve; a person quit at the place I work and I got her hours. Good for getting more money for college, bad for on-wiki time. The non-standard stuff is coming from Cite newspaper The Times; if we can't change them, I could convert them to cite news, though I'm not sure where the bolded issue #'s would go...or I could just copy/paste in the text generated by the templates and manually fix the pg.'s. Not sure what you mean by "template limits"...? Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an ambitious person should TFD Cite newspaper The Times as redundant ... Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The template wasn't edit protected, so I was able to fix it myself. But it is redundant to cite journal, which could accomplish the same thing.  I hope someone TFDs it as creepy.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.