Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Peresvet/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 Graham Colm (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2014 (diff).

Russian battleship Peresvet

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Peresvet was designed to defeat enemy armored cruisers defending convoys of merchant ships, but ended up fighting battleships when she was sent to Port Arthur before the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05. She was badly damaged in the Battle of the Yellow Sea and was scuttled in harbor once the Imperial Japanese Army could bombard it effectively. She was salvaged by the Japanese and placed into service. She was then sold back to the Russians during World War I and was in the White Sea when the British decided to intervene in the Russian Civil War in 1919. Although her crew had earlier declared their allegiance to the Bolsheviks, they did nothing to stop the British landings. She was eventually scrapped in 1924, well after the British withdrew from the war. The article passed GAN several years ago, but it's been expanded and extensively rewritten using information from new sources. It just passed a MilHist A-class review and should be in pretty good shape although I expect reviewers will still find a few infelicities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Singora
I guess I can't give my support since this is my first FA review. The article is generally excellent, but there are however issues. Singora (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The last sentence in the Battle of Port Arthur section reads: "She was hit on 9 August by two 4.7-inch (120 mm) shells fired by a battery with a narrow view of the harbor, but they only slightly damaged the ship". You don't need "the ship" since it's obvious that "She" incurred the damage. After the comma, you could try:
 * but the damage incurred was only slight
 * but the damage suffered was minimal
 * In the Siege of Port Arthur section you have the sentence "The Japanese began firing blindly into the harbor on 30 September and hit Peresvet with at least six 5.9-inch (150 mm) and 4.7-inch shells that day and once more the following day". To avoid repeating the word "day", try:
 * The Japanese began firing blindly into the harbor on 30 September: Peresvet was struck (hit) by at least six 5.9-inch (150 mm) and 4.7-inch shells and suffered a further hit (strike) the following day.
 * In the same section you've written "This allowed the Imperial Japanese Army's siege guns to fire directly at the Russian ships and they hit Peresvet many times". This doesn't appear to be sourced. And what exactly does the word "many" mean?
 * The whole paragraph is sourced to one cite. Russian sources say 44 hits, but may be including near-misses, so I used "many" as a nice way to avoid getting into pointless detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See the Japanese career section. You have the sentence "Peresvet was refloated by Japanese engineers on 29 June 1905 and steamed under her own power to Sasebo Naval Arsenal, where she arrived on 25 August and was renamed Sagami, taking her name from the ancient Japanese province of Sagami, now a part of Kanagawa prefecture." This is too long. Additionally, she didn't take her name -- she was given it. And the name is not from the province: Peresvet was renamed after the province. I would try:
 * Peresvet was refloated by Japanese engineers on 29 June 1905 and steamed under her own power to Sasebo Naval Arsenal, where she arrived on 25 August. There she was renamed Sagami, after the eponymous Japanese province.
 * Note to the above: I've omitted "now a part of Kanagawa prefecture" as I don't believe anyone will really care where this province is located.
 * She sank north of Port Said -- this part of your article is very brief. Has her wreckage been located? Has anyone ever attempted to find it?
 * There's nothing to report. Nobody's ever mounted an expedition to find her, AFAIK, and her wreck has never been found. Thanks for your comments, you've made some very useful points.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Peresvet1901.jpg: when/where was this first published? The life+70 provision would not have the copyright expiring before the URAA date
 * Date/place of publication is unknown.
 * Then how do we know this is free to use? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Marius Bar was a commercial photographer, while he didn't necessarily turn his photos into postcards, he did sell them, probably not long after taking them, which would count as publication.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Naval_Ensign_of_Russia.svg: the multiple tags here are contradictory. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, the design of the flag isn't in copyright by Russian law, and Zscout370 seems to actually have made the image if that matters. I don't know that it does, but either way, the image is OK. If Zscout's tag needs to be deleted, that's fine, just let me know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The image is OK, but if the design is not original enough to warrant a copyright then Zscout's version of the design wouldn't be either. Either of the Russian or ineligible tags would be sufficient on its own, but you can't have both ineligible and Zscout's. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, great article. I do have a few quibbles:
 * "" This isn't clear to me. You say that the ships were inspired by the British second-class battleships, which were intended to defeat commerce raiders, and then go on to say that Peresvet was meant for an entirely different purpose (supporting the cruisers, aka taking on the second-class battleships?) It might be better to say that they were intended to counter the Centurions?
 * That's not explicitly stated in my source, but only implied. And it may be that the Russian armoured cruisers were intended to overmatch escorting protected cruisers and the Peresvet class to overpower escorting armoured cruisers.
 * "" This could be a much stronger opening sentence. How long had they had these ambitions? Were these long-standing tensions? I realize that this article isn't meant to focus on those characteristics (and already has good amount of background), but this is the difference between making readers go onto several different articles or keeping them here. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Typo I'll reply to your comments on my article later. Meanwhile: Singora (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. You have a typo "against an Mongolian army".
 * 2. Are you sure this makes sense "Her laid down on 21 November 1895 by the Baltic Works in Saint Petersburg and launched on 19 May 1898"? The link in "laid down" points to Keel.
 * Good catch; that part was changed after the start of the FAC and I didn't notice those issues. BTW, don't be shy about giving it your support if you think the article is worthy of FA status. That this is your first review doesn't really matter. We all had to start somewhere.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Support from Singora

 * 1. I've compared this article with South Carolina-class battleship and your other article, Russian battleship Poltava (1894). I think the Poltava article is the best of the three; the South Carolina article has issues re: grammar.
 * What did you like best about the Poltava article, if I might be so bold? I didn't write that one by myself so I'm curious.
 * 2. I am extremely impressed with your library. In due course, I think I'll set up my own user page and do the same.
 * A lifetime's collecting and it's a handy way to keep the books I use for bibliographies in the proper format instead of trying to remember where I'd used any particular title.
 * 3. Good luck with your nominations! Singora (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And you as well although Singora should be promoted soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Support -- Recusing from delegate duties as I have a FAC open myself at the moment and am therefore commenting on a few nominations... I reviewed, copyedited and supported this at MilHist ACR and, having checked over the changes since then, I think it meets the FAC criteria as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt
Leaning support. A few things:
 * Lede
 * "seriously damaged ... Badly damaged" Suggest variation
 * Design
 * "and the Peresvet class was designed to support their armored cruisers." Who is "their"? The previous plural noun is "Russian ships".
 * The second of the three convert templates yields an exact 1:1. The other two do not.
 * Which ones do you mean exactly? The ones in the sentence laying out her size?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Construction
 * Even in passing, I think Fr. Peresvet deserves a better description of the manner of his fighting and dying.
 * Nothing I have provides any more details; to do as you'd like would be to add unsourced material to the article. Note that his Wiki article is totally unsourced.
 * "and launched on 19 May 1898" I think you need a "she was" before launched
 * Battle etc.
 * "Japan interpreted this as deliberate prevarications" "this" should probably be "these"
 * While the use of the word "ship" is unavoidable, I remind you there are synonyms to avoid overuse
 * "Japanese fleet shortly before sunset, as he did not wish to engage the numerically superior Japanese" one or the other "Japanese" can probably be replaced by "enemy" or "opposing"
 * Return to Russia
 * She didn't, did she?
 * I'm not sure what you mean here, use of a contraction?
 * "the submarine SM U-73" as in the lede, I think you have to say "German submarine".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But I already told the reader that it was German in the lede. Do you think that I need to tell them again? This isn't that big an article.

Thanks for your helpful comments. If you can clarify a couple of your points so I can address them, I'd be grateful, I think that the rest have been dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I am very sorry, I overlooked this one. Please feel free to remind me if this happens again.  My concerns were addressed by your edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Some details, for example initial service date, differ between text and infobox
 * Fixed number of columns in reflist is deprecated in favour of column width. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that I've caught all of these. Thanks for your prompt response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.