Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Potemkin/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 via FACBot (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2015.

Russian battleship Potemkin

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The subject of this nomination is famous for a film about a mutiny that took place aboard her in 1905, part of the Russian Revolution of that year. Sergei Eisenstein made his movie twenty years after the mutiny and it has been acclaimed as one of the greatest movies of all time, but the ship itself had an interesting history during World War I in the Black Sea. The article had a MilHist A-class review two years ago and that review pointed out that I needed to expand coverage of the ship in Eisenstein's film. I've finally done that and I've also taken the opportunity to tweak the article in response to comments that I received recently from some informal reviews in preparation for this FAC. But experience has shown me that something is always overlooked and I trust that reviewers will find any such infelicities as well as points that need to be clarified for non specialists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Panteleimon,_1906.jpg: when was this image first published and what is the author's date of death? Same with File:Panteleimon1906-1910.jpg
 * Place and date of publication unknown as is the name of the photographer. In McLaughlin's book the first one is credited to naval historian Boris Lemachko, but he didn't take the photo, just provided it. Will try to hunt down, but have added US tags.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Potemkin_mutiny_le_kniaz_potemkine-tauritchesski_a_constantza.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Given the publication date it is quite possible they did not. Also needs US PD tag
 * Tags updated.
 * File:Vintage_Potemkin.jpg: which of the listed criteria applies to this work? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Published anonymously in 1925 and also more than 70 years since publication.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I reviewed at ACR a few years back and see that quite a bit of work has been done since then. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Comments looks pretty good. I wonder about the last section, it's not really the ship's legacy, but the mutiny's, but I guess you have to have it to satisfy the reader.
 * I suggest cropping a couple of the images to remove the captions from the images themselves: "File:Leader of Potemkin revolt.jpg" and "File:Potemkin mutiny le kniaz potemkine-tauritchesski a constantza.jpg";
 * inconsistent: "She also mounted six 47-millimetre" (body) v. "6 × single 37 mm (1.5 in) guns" (infobox)
 * "On 13 April 1917 the ship was renamed Potemkin-Tavricheski (Russian: Потёмкин-Таврический) and then to Borets za svobodu (Russian: Борец за свободу – Freedom Fighter) on 11 May 1917": do we know why?
 * it looks like the article uses British English variation. As such, "theater" should be "theatre". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A couple of good catches there, Rupert, all fixed and captions trimmed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot, the first name change is attributed by McLaughlin to the February Revolution, but no reason for the second one. Perhaps insufficiently revolutionary?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Added my support as my comments have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Lede
 * "which later came to be viewed as an initial step towards the Russian Revolution of 1917." I would strike "later". After all, logically, at least 12 years would have had to pass before it could be viewed as such.
 * "shortly after Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire in late 1914 during World War I" All these clauses! Surely they can be compacted. And, I note if you are using British English as set forth in review comments above, it is "the First World War".
 * Not necessarily, the Brits do use WWI, etc. so it's not a national usage thing.
 * " Turkish battlecruiser Yavuz Sultan Selim; Panteleimon" I would change the semicolon to a dash.
 * "before she could inflict any serious damage on the Russian ships" I don't think "on the Russian ships" adds anything.
 * Design
 * "an improved version of Tri Sviatitelia instead." I had to click to figure out that was a ship's name and a Russian one at that. Could you clue in the reader in-line?
 * Power
 * Was the output of the engines as stated per engine or for the pair?
 * The pair, that's why I used the phrase "total horsepower"
 * Armament
 * " other four were positioned at a corner of the superstructure" Not the same corner, surely.
 * I think I saw that arrangement in a cartoon once.
 * Protection
 * "citadel" link?
 * Mutiny
 * " the mutineers refused to land armed sailors that would bolster the striking revolutionaries' attempt to take over the city" perhaps simplify as "the mutineers refused to land armed sailors to help the striking revolutionaries take over the city"
 * The description of Potemkin meeting the other ships doesn't read clearly. For example, the ships turned away.  Why? "ordered the ships back to Odessa" which ships?  The only ship I am aware of that had been to Odessa recently was Potemkin.  The others, it is at least implied, came from elsewhere.
 * No responsibility is assigned in the sources for the first three ships turning away.
 * You are inconsistent in your usage of the funny Romanian t in "Constanta"
 * WWI (see my comment about British usage)
 * "submarines stationed at Varna." That's three Varnas in a very short span, can this one be changed to "submarines stationed there"?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking this over. I've linked, tweaked and rewritten things in response to your comments. Let me know if any issues remain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Support - a nice piece of work, with only minor comments from me:
 * "On 27 June 1905, Potemkin was at gunnery practice near Tendra Island off the Ukrainian coast when many enlisted men refused to eat the borscht made from rotten meat partially infested with maggots when it was delivered to the warship by the Potemkin‍ '​s escort, the torpedo boat Ismail (No. 627)." - is there any chance of an extra comma for this sentence - it felt like quite a hard read.
 * Decided that the way that the meat got there really wasn't important.
 * "The battleship was easily refloated, "- who refloated it...?
 * "Ismail‍ '​s crew decided the following morning to return to Sevastopol and turn themselves in. Before the crew disembarked, " - I couldn't work out from this where the crew was disembarking or scuttling the ship (I'd assumed Sevatopol, but then the ship has to be towed there later).
 * "Panteleimon, flagship of the 1st Battleship Brigade, accompanied by the pre-dreadnoughts Evstafi, Ioann Zlatoust, and Tri Sviatitelia, covered the pre-dreadnought Rostislav while she bombarded Trebizond on the morning of 17 November 1914 after Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire. " - quite a long sentence - could it break somewhere in the middle? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Trimmed a few bits, see if the changes work for you. Appreciate you taking the time to review this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk
Oppose while waiting for reponses - I think a few of my suggestions are pretty serious, so would like some kind of response before this is passed. I have bolded the most important issues. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just watched the film, but wanted to wait until some more history-savvy reviewers had taken a look before I added any comments. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Could a date and location be added to the infobox picture? Likewise, could a date be added to the photo caption under mutiny?
 * "built for the Imperial Russian Navy's" only mentioned in the intro, which should not have unique info.
 * You're getting really far down into the weeds here. The Russian Black Sea Fleet is mentioned in the lede and the first para of the planning section; no reader will fail to make the connection.
 * "was a pre-dreadnought battleship" Likewise, should probably be mentioned early in the article outside the intro as well?
 * This one's quite a bit trickier as pre-dreadnought is a categorization applied after the fact as Dreadnought herself wasn't even designed until the year of the mutiny. She was only slightly obsolescent until more modern dreadnought-type battleships/battlecruisers were introduced into the Black Sea in 1914–15. I'm really not sure how to respond to your comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it make more chronological sense to switch the position of the Panteleimon photo and the one next to the "later service" section?
 * Perhaps, but I figured that a photo of the ship during the mutiny ought to be in the mutiny section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "At some point during the war, her 75 mm guns were also removed." During what war? No war is mentioned until that point. I assume WW1?
 * Fair enough.
 * "and captured Ismail." Which is what? Not presented before this point (seems to be further down, but should be at first mention).
 * Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "to help the striking revolutionaries take over the city" Until this point, the article (outside the intro) has not mentioned that there was a revolution in Russia outside the mutiny. Could warrant a mention before for context.
 * Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There generally seems to be very little context for the 1905 mutiny placing it within the wider revolution, is it possible to add a bit more? Especially since there is no separate article about the mutiny, this one should give as much detail about it as possible (by this I mainly mean lacking in context).
 * There's not much more to add, really. The armed forces were mostly neutral during the 1905 revolution, with the exception of multiple mutinies in the Black Sea Fleet. As stated, these were organized by the Central Committee, although they were after Potemkin's, if memory served. So I'm not sure how much more I can add without losing focus on the ship.
 * Constanța is not linked at first mention in the article body, and it is not mentioned what country it is in either. Also, there is inconsistency in whether you spell it Constanța or Constanta.
 * Yeah, this goes back to which spelling to use, the English version or the Romanian. Generally I prefer to use the former, but I get people changing them to the native spelling. And wiki itself is schizophrenic about the topic, Cologne vs Köln, Munich vs München, but many other places use the native name rather than the perfectly acceptable English name. Good catch, though, on the inconsistency. And the country in which it lies is mentioned in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "in what came to be known as the Battle of Cape Sarych" Against who?
 * Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "and several ships of the Turkish navy raided" Ottoman rather than Turkish by this point? There was no Turkish state.
 * Ottoman and Turkish are pretty synonymous in English, e.g. Ottoman Turks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "that destroyed 39 Turkish sailing ships." Likewise.
 * "The ship was renamed Panteleimon" Why, to disassociate it with the mutiny?
 * presumably, but my sources don't give a reason
 * "the ship was renamed Potemkin-Tavricheski" Why, to re-associate it with the mutiny? And what does the latter part mean?
 * Almost certainly, remember that it was renamed after the February Revolution. I did have to consistently spell it, but its meaning is given in the first sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "was scrapped beginning in 1923" Why, was it damaged or obsolete?
 * Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "The ship was relegated to secondary roles after the first dreadnought battleship entered service in late 1915. She was now obsolete and was reduced to reserve in 1918 in Sevastopol." Little of this detail is mentioned outside the intro.
 * Expanded somewhat.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "and cared nothing for Communism" Wording seems a bit too informal.
 * He wasn't against it, but he wasn't a communist in any way, shape or form. Happy to take suggestions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You there, ? FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thorough review. I've also dealt with everything that I didn't explicitly respond to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - changes look good, I was pretty sure I would support in the end in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Outstanding remarks here for almost a week and you've been active on-wiki without responding—can you please respond with your status/intent? -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Source review/spot check by Cas Liber

 * Watch this space.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * One book (Friedman) has 13 digit ISBN and all others have 10 digit ones...any reason...?
 * Books published before about '07 only have 10-digit ISBNs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The External Links all look good in that they add extra information and colour not available directly in the article, but should they be properly laid out with information like references maybe (rather than just title/links)?
 * In my experience, they're generally not handled that way, even at FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to the delegates then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cas, I sort of see you point, but not really. I slightly de-editorialised them, and they look fine? Ceoil (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The changes you made look good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't view any of the books on googlebooks and all material is from offline. Will look at some web pages later.


 *  Leaning support on prose, comprehensiveness, and quality of sources. It's a very well written and engaging article, on a topic only know to me via stills from the Eisenstein film. No major issues. Ceoil (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Leaning support The article is well written and sources are good. I am still need to check the film out though.Reb1981 (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Probably not as strong as the Dreadnought class ships here, but still looks like quite a tough ship. On the article's structure and composition -- I must say I particularly like the Legacy section, it caps off the article quite nicely. Well done. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  00:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.