Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre/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 Laser brain 01:46, 22 November 2010.

Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre

 * Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Almirante Latorre continued a trend in trying to upstage the other South American countries in obtaining larger dreadnought battleships. However, the ship was still being built in the UK when the First World War broke out, so she was purchased and used in the Grand Fleet during that time. Repurchased by Chile in 1920, she participated in a major mutiny in 1931 and served during the Second World War. The ship lasted until 1959, when she was scrapped in Japan. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sketchy on Royal Navy service - 3 years in the war, including the largest battleship battle ever, covered by about the same number of sentences. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:
 * Footnote 7 reads POVishly and is not cited
 * In the short citations there is insufficient distiction between '"Schenia, Latin America" and '"Schenia, Latin America's Wars". I would advise adding dates, thus: "Schenia, Latin America 1987" etc. Incidentally, ref 45 shows "Schenia, Latin American: which one is this?
 * Ref 12: It is not immediately clear that Schenia, "Chile" refers to an article by Schenia in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1906–1921, and this should be clarified. (Also ref 19)
 * Ref 17: Where is Henry Prather Fletcher being quoted from (who is he, anyway?)
 * Ref 38: what is the original source that is quoted by Schenia?

Otherwise, sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian,
 * Fixed, I moved it out of the main text and forgot to bring a citation with it.
 * Changed Latin America to Naval History, which appears to be fine per
 * Chicago style uses the chapter names
 * Additional information added.
 * It looks like he obtained it from ONI records in the National Archives. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Query  thanks that was an interesting read, I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) There is a whole load of information in the infobox, and while I wouldn't expect all of it in the article something on the ships layout would be interesting. Especially as to how the armour and guns compared to other ships.
 * 2) Can you add anything about crew conditions? At the moment you have the mutiny and a total crew size, I'd be interested in whether they were professional or conscript, was it a dry navy or a more English influenced one?
 * 3) If there were only 5 14" guns they would seem from the photo to be in two forward turrets, am I right in thinking that an unconventional design?
 * 4) Were the rear turrets for the lighter guns? I missed the x twin bit, but I think it could do with a rephrase - 10 14" guns in five twin gun turrets.
 * 5) Range info would be useful - both for guns and for the ship
 * 6) In terms of the rivalry, Brazil and Chile were both rivals of Argentina, but I thought Chile's rivals were Argentina and Peru (and Bolivia but she had lost her coast to Chile and was no longer a Naval power).
 * 7) As said above any info on who she was shooting at and whether she achieved anything at Jutland would be nice.
 * 8) An explanation re Aircraft launching platforms would be nice, I thought battleships of the era could only have seaplanes.
 * Hey WSC! Thanks for reviewing the article.
 * 1. I haven't added it to my other South American battleship articles, but I'm planning on adding it into the class article when I write it (think Rivadavia-class battleship and ARA Moreno)
 * I was thinking more that a section on layout and capabilities would be useful as it enables more context to be added than an Infobox can convey.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like to include that in my individual ship articles because it's so technical and detailed, while not directly related to the story of the ship. I can write the class article and leave a link to it at the top of the "Construction" section using main, however... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK that should work.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2. Hahah - the Chilean Navy was hugely influenced by the Brits, mostly due to the presence of a foreign naval mission, but I'm not sure if that extended to alcoholism. Schenia comments that "Favor such as Great Britain showed Chile found no parallel in the world's other important navies", while also remarking on the "strong ties" since 1839 and calling it a "special relationship." (Latin America: A Naval History, 138). This is certainly at least on of the reasons they were considered to be a very professional force. Another was their pivotal role in the 1891 revolution and their stability – the 1931 mutiny was the first since 1891. Having said all that, I'm not sure how relevant this is to Almirante Latorre. :-)
 * 3. No, there were ten – five turrets with ten guns each. Five guns in two fore turrets would be an extremely unconventional design, though. I've added an image farther down in the article which I hope clarifies this.
 * Let me just point out that ten guns might be a bit much for one turret :P As for five guns in two turrets forward, it isn't all that unconventional - Nevada mounted her guns that way, and the Ersatz Monach class were intended to be the same. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Two**, and I was thinking more along the lines of five guns in two turrets and no other armament. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4. Same as #1?
 * No same as 3, but that great image largely resolves this, thanks. Perhaps it could do with an explanation in the caption that the main guns are in the five turrets and whatever the other guns are?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5. The naval rivalry between the 'big three' ABC countries. Peru had almost no navy to speak of outside of two old cruisers. Still, it's probably misleading, as Argentina was far-and-beyond the biggest rival – the two had an on-and-off naval arms race going since 1893.
 * 6. I've emailed  and  about this.
 * Looking through John Campbell's Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting, it doesn't appear that Canada was heavily engaged in the battle. She briefly fired at the crippled SMS Wiesbaden at 18:40, but made no hits. She engaged an unidentified target about 40 minutes later and fired 5 salvos, but again scored no hits. At around the same time she fired on some German destroyers with her secondary guns, but doesn't appear to have hit anything. That's it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I can see there isn't much point in mentioning her in the Jutland article, but if that was the only time in her career that she got to fire her guns in anger then it should be mentioned. Unless that is her career as "Canada" is something separate?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've emailed Parsec and he should be getting me (a) page number(s) for that info. It'll be good for one more sentence, at least... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I kind of forgot about this. Campbell states:
 * "Finally, the Canada opened fire at 1840, but only got off two salvos and neither was seen to fall" (p. 157)
 * "Lastly, the Canada opened fire at 1920 at a ship seen very indistinctly on the starboard beam. Five salvos of APC were fired, of which the first, fourth, and fifth were corrected "Up 1000". Gun range was not recorded, but the range-finder increased from 10,000 to 12,800yds while firing. The Canada made nohits, and it is not known which ship she was engaging." (pp. 206-7)
 * "The Iron Duke joined in the firing [against German destroyers] with 6in at 1911 at 10,000-9,000yds, the Conqueror with 13.5in at 1912, and the Canada with 6in shortly afterwards." (p. 210) - no mention of any hits made by Canada
 * Hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that solves that.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 7. The first aircraft platform was tested onboard USS Birmingham (CL-2) in 1910 by Eugene Ely, and the first landing was done aboard USS Philadelphia (C-4) in 1911. They were mostly impractical due to the space needed, and it was hard to use rangefinders when the platforms were placed on top of superfiring turrets, so seaplanes were the most common. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, nuther one "two of the aft 6-inch secondary guns were landed after they suffered blast damage from the middle 14-inch turret" should that be removed not landed?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed, 'landed' implies they were used as shore batteries, which I highly doubt! :-) Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support A great account of a noteworthy battleship.  Well written.  Dolphin  ( t ) 06:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Image review concern on sole image File:Almirante Latorre diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg: How does "artist not identified" mean validity for the the PD-old tag (life of the author plus 70 years) when the diagram was published in 1923? Could the art editor A. J. W. Burgess aka Arthur James Wetherall Burgess (1879–1953) not have drawn it or the previously identified Plans artist S. W. Barnaby (see File:Brassey's Invicible-Indefatigable Plan (1915).jpg)? Since this is a 1923 publication (not pre-1923), it could still receive US copyright protection until 2019 if the artist was not dead before 1926. Jappalang (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What difference would it make if the book was not published with a copyright notice? (I don't see one, and archive.org lists its reason for "not in copyright" as "no visible notice of copyright.") Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No difference. If it (a foreign publication) did not comply with US copyright law (notice and such), then the URAA cutoff (PD before 1 Jan 1996) comes into play (thus my reasoning for the 1926 death of author).  Why not use HMS Canada public domain photographs (Surgeon Oscar Parkes's SP 2743 and SP 1938 at IWM)?  Jappalang (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a combination of PD-UK-unknown and PD-1996 would work here because the author is certainly not identified. Per the preface (page n37), it seems like the only work Burgess did was on the profiles, which appear later in the book. Still, I'll remove it. I was warned off of IWM images by an archivist at the NH&HC – "they are just down right nasty. I've heard many stories from researchers and friends dealing with them." – and I don't entirely trust that they couldn't find me, given certain overlaps between my real and wiki lives. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is by a known artist, S. W. Barnaby. The 1923 drawing (as Latorre) is exactly the same as Canada's in 1915.  I have uploaded the 1915 drawing (File:Brassey's HMS Canada Plan (1915).jpg) to Wikipedia and inserted it into the article.  Jappalang (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks Jappalang! I didn't even think to see if there was one in the 1915 version. Apologies, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * Made a couple of small prose edits, check to see if they work for you.
 * Some places of publication for your refs have states, some don't. Pick one and standardize them.
 * Aren't places of publication needed for journals?
 * Article meets completeness criteria, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I used states for the first occurrence of each town, but that seems silly now. No, not according to Chicago. Thanks for the review Sturm! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * a mast was added in between the two funnels to service the launches. I don't think that a mast itself could handle any boats, but it could support a derrick as is visible on some of the photos of Canada.
 * Were the times mentioned in the section on Jutland a.m. or p.m.?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No issues with plagarism with Burt, Worth and Whitley, the only three sources I have on hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Derrick - fixed
 * Time - PM? It's in military (24 hour) time, so isn't this evident? Or am I looking at a different part than you?
 * Thanks for the review Sturm! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooops, my mistake.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Dana boomer (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Comments I'll be happy to support when these are resolved. Dana boomer (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Preston is in References, but not Endnotes
 * I am confused about the chronological progression in the Background section. At the end of the first paragraph, you say that the Rivadavia class was sold, but then at the end of the second paragraph Argentina is building Rivadavia and Moreno. What's going on here?
 * Background, "responded by asking for tenders from". What does it mean to ask for tenders?
 * Construction, isn't there something we can link war scare to? Or do we even need it linked - it's a fairly basic term. Same for naval mission in the Early career section.
 * Early career, "for a British naval mission, which arrived in the following year." First, why not just say "arrived the following year" - in is redundant. Second, maybe I'm not understanding "naval mission" in this context, but how does a mission "arrive" - aren't they usually performed, completed, undertaken, etc.?
 * Early career, "Major alterations included the rebuilding of the bridge, updating the main battery fire control to more modern standards along with adding it for the secondary armament for the first time, a new mast between the third and fourth turrets, anti-torpedo bulges similar to the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, the addition of anti-aircraft guns, and her steam turbine engines were replaced." This sentence is not only long, it is also not parallel in the least. You have a couple of "-ing" clauses, one "-ed" clause, and a couple with nothing.
 * Early career, "Nearly two years after the modernization began (5 March 1931)" Why the date in parentheses? Why not just "began on 5 March 1931"?
 * 1931 Mutinee, "All of their land gains were surrendered, leaving only the fleet in the mutineers' hands." Why were they surrendered? Did the mutineers just up and quit, or were the gains taken back by force?
 * Later career, "The offer, however, was rebuffed" Why?
 * Preston - fixed
 * There were two Rivadavia classes, one class of armored crusiers that were sold to Japan before completion, and one class of dreadnoughts. I've clarified this in the text.
 * asking for tenders - linked to call for bids.
 * war scare - unlinked
 * on naval missions - I didn't think about this before, strangely, but a "naval mission" is not "navy going on a mission". It's more like a country's ambassador to a smaller nation, except that missions have a number of naval officers who are tasked with assisting the smaller country with their navy. They also tended to advocate for buying ships from their home country, which the smaller country tended to do. In this case, the British naval mission was very well-established and respected in Chile, making it nearly impossible for another country to win a large contract. I should probably start a stub on this...
 * Early career alterations - that's a horrifying sentence. It's still really long, but does it look better?
 * nearly two years - fixed
 * mutiny - fixed, they were taken back
 * rebuffed - the sources don't say why. Given that only a year earlier Chile was seeking to acquire acquire more warships, including two cruisers, from the United States to protect its (very long) coastline from Argentina and the growing threat of Japan (Schenia, Naval History, 163), I'd assume they were worried they would be drawn into to the war somehow and would need the battleship, but that's OR.
 * Thanks for the review Dana, it's much appreciated. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm really confused. Why does the Preston ref go before the Livermore ref? Dana boomer (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, that was a mistake. In the edit window, I thought "Seward" was the last name (because of the wikilink). Sorry! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you managed to make me think for a while that I had completely forgotten how to recite the alphabet... Everything else looks good. I tweaked the long sentence a bit and split it into two - see if you like it; if not, feel free to revert me, although I still think that the sentence construction was awkward even in your tweaked version. A stub on naval missions would be much appreciated, as I (obviously) had no idea what the term meant, but that shouldn't hold the FAC up. Nice work, and I have added my support. Dana boomer (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry! :-) I added two commas before the "and"s, but your version is much better. I'll try to write one up asap! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have to admit Chile isn't the first country I think of when battleships are mentioned, so this has some novelty value for me apart from anything else...!
 * Performed a light copyedit but generally structure, prose, coverage, referencing, and supporting materials look good.
 * Quibble, not affecting support: I don't see the point of cluttering up the infobox with citations when the figures are also referenced in the main body of the article -- in the lead you don't cite info that's referenced in the body -- but I seem to recall this is your standard practice and has been accepted at FAC before... ;-)
 * Thanks Ian. Someone's got to tell the story of these awesome ships. :-) Thanks for the copyedit... just when you think an article can't get better, you come along. :P I've removed the citations. I think the last time I did that was with North Carolina-class battleship. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I think that this article meets the FA criteria. I've simplified the wording in a couple of places, and would suggest two further minor changes:
 * " she was in good enough condition for the United States to offer to purchase her soon after the attack on Pearl Harbor" - "to offer to purchase" is a bit awkward
 * "the ship spent most of the Second World War on patrol for Chile" - this indicates that she spent most of the war at sea, which is very unlikely to be the case. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick! I think I've addressed your concerns. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Query Has this had an independent check for WP:V and WP:COPYVIO issues? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Define what you want from V, it's a wide-ranging document. If you want to know if everything is referenced to reliable sources, no check of the refs has been done, but all book references have passed past FACs, and the only online sources are from the New York Times and the Chilean Navy's official website. Sturm checked the sources we share for copyvios and found none, but no check has been done for Schenia AFAIK. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally just an spot-check for proper attribution, not that the sources themselves are acceptable—that's been done by Brian above. For copyvio, a spot-check for close paraphrasing, etc. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  21:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sturmvogel has done a spot check on the refs for copyvio/plagiarism, as he notes above. Do you need more than that? Dana boomer (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. Nope. Thanks! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  21:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


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