Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Agincourt (1913)/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 GrahamColm 08:19, 23 July 2012.

HMS Agincourt (1913)

 * Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC) and Sturmvogel 66

It has been quite some time since I've been at FAC, but I hope you enjoy this article, which was developed by Sturmvogel with me as a collaborator. Agincourt had, as one author put it, a 'curious career'. The ship was ordered by Brazil as the next step in the South American dreadnought race, essentially to serve as an instrument of national prestige. Unfortunately for naval supporters in Brazil, now was when the country experienced a major naval revolt and an economic depression... so they sold the ship to the Ottoman Empire. Equally as unfortunate for the Ottomans, the ship was completed just one week after the start of World War I, and Winston Churchill was suspicious that the Ottomans would enter the war on the German side... so he sent British marines to seize the ship (driving the Ottomans into the war). So, as a British ship, Agincourt served in the war before being scrapped a few years after its conclusion, an entirely unremarkable career for something which was previously so controversial. Thank you for your time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quick notes: this is a co-nomination with Sturmvogel 66, who wrote most of the article; the article passed a GAN in December 2011 and a Military history A-class review in June 2012; this is part of the OMT project and the last South American dreadnought to come to FAC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice article. I think it overstates the role the ship's absorption into the RN had in Turkey joining the war. The seizure of the ships was a factor, but the Goeben and its exploits pushed things over the edge. Needs a mention. --John (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks John, as always. How does it look now? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. It looks great. I appreciate your edits to accommodate my criticism and have made some further adjustments to give a fuller picture. --John (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (The toolserver may fail to show recent edits.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - all my substantive comments were addressed in the ACR, though I think John has a good point. You might also mention that Reshadiye was seized as well. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Flag_of_Brazil_(1889-1960).svg needs US PD tag
 * File:HMS_Agincourt_und_Erin.jpg is tagged as lacking author info
 * Be consistent in whether you provide location or publisher for journals. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These should all be fixed, thanks Nikki. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Prose comments from Crisco 1492
 * "led to her sale while under construction to the Ottoman Empire. " - Her may have to be replaced by "the ship" or "the hull" or whatever is applicable. The sentence may be misread as "sold Brazil" or something equally ludicrous.
 * "but much of the ship's crockery and glassware would shatter." - Why the "would"? Did this ever happen?
 * "Agincourt was working up until" - Is this correct, or would it be "Agincourt was worked up until"


 * Very minor points, so I'll support outright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I work with Ed at the Signpost so I may have a COI (didn't think of it like that, but if Tony's doing it best to be safe) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, if you and Tony don't support you'll be ... well, I can't really fire people. ;-) Thanks for the comments; I'll respond to them asap! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed the first and second points. The third is the correct way of putting it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Looks very well-written. Note that I have a CoI because I collaborate closely with Ed, who's the Signpost's editor in chief. Here are a few minor points from my looking through the lead.
 * "Rising international demand for coffee and rubber in the early 20th century brought Brazil an influx of revenue in the early 1900s." – didn't much like that close repetition.
 * "a drive on the part of prominent Brazilians" – "by prominent ..."?
 * For clarification, do you mean "a drive by prominent ..."? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Theme and rheme: "The National Congress of Brazil inaugurated a large naval acquisition program in late 1904. Three Minas Geraes-class dreadnoughts were envisioned under the plan, though it was two years before any ships were ordered, and even longer before construction began." – I'd be inclined to keep the ball running by making "Under the plan" thematic (first position) in the second sentence. Optional remove comma before "and".
 * "As" is such a poorly engineered word in English. I genuinely don't know whether this is a because as or an at the same time as as: "As Brazil's relations with Argentina were warming and the country's economic boom was losing steam, the government negotiated with Armstrong to remove the third dreadnought from the contract, but unsuccessfully." Hope you don't mind: I stole it.
 * Previous one – The last two words come as a sudden thud; perhaps ", but these negotiations were unsuccessful" ["negotations" repeated ... unsure]; or "the government unsuccessfully negotiated ..."; or "the government negotiated without success to ...".
 * It was originally "... negotiated, unsuccessfully." which read odd to me (i.e. I changed it a bit). I like your wording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Consider removing "certainly".
 * Just a small point you may or may not respond to: "The design called for a staggering fourteen 12-inch guns". Possibly instead: "The design called for a staggering number of 12-inch guns—fourteen in all— ...". Tony   (talk)  09:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work, Tony, thanks so much. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony, I've fixed all your points. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


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