Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:56, 12 June 2011.

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)

 * Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This is my second article I have sent to FAC, and my third experience at FAC (the first article was declined once). I think I have found everything I can on Sevastopol. It's passed a MilHist AcR and a GA review. This article means more to me than others because this is the first article I created, albeit in my userspace. I await your comments. Buggie111 (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Be consistent in whether you provide states for publisher locations, and if so whether those states are abbreviated. Also, is it necessary to include "United Kingdom" for London? Conventionally one would not
 * ISBN for Balakin?
 * Location for Taras? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The MilHist ACR stated that UK had to be listed there. I've generailized the states. Neither the ISBN or location is available for the two books you lsited, and this has been discussed in the AcR.Buggie111 (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange, but in that case why not just "UK"? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * K then, I'll fix it tomorrow. Buggie111 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Buggie111 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * All images are in the public domain, properly licensed and have alt text.
 * External links are all working correctly.
 * There is one dab link that needs fixing.
 * Conversions of measurement need work. In converting metric measurements there currently is a variety of conversions used here such as nautical miles, miles and fathoms. Some measurements have no conversions at all. Remember that when converting a nautical measurement you need the metric and US equivalents. Brad (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, Brad. I'll get to work on them tomorrow. Buggie111 (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What was the ship doing between 1901 and 1904? Brad (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I think I've got the conversions done, could you please say if there are any mistakes. OK, now for your question. Nothing. It just sat there. Buggie111 (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In what manner are your sources giving you measurements? If they give a nautical measurement convert it to metric and US. If they give you metric measurement convert it to US. In the last paragraph of the article there is a conversion of metric to nautical, in this case fathoms. What was the reasoning behind that? Brad (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe everything is fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I made some corrections and added a cn tag where a conversion is missing. Don't wikilink common measurements like meters, foot, kph, mph etc. Think about adding a sentence or two to explain the missing 3 years while the ship just sat around. Brad (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * K' there. All done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Knots, nautical miles, etc. are not common units and should be linked. We know what they are because we use them all the time. The average person doesn't have a clue how they differ from ordinary units.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. That popped up in my mind, but I went ahead. Fixing. Buggie111 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, on both counts. Buggie111 (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Balakin and Taras sources should be reconsidered per WP:NONENG Strike comment. Russian ship Russian sources. Brad (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the reference books listed have OCLC numbers and some don't. All books listed should either have the OCLC number or none at all. The exception being books published prior to use of ISBN's. Brad (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Buggie111 (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I see no further issues. Brad (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also supporting on MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It says "instruments measured higher speed and horsepower". The quantity measured is called 'power'.
 * The title "Service history" is displaced to the right on my screen. That may be due to the placement of images.
 * The 'General characteristics' has some primary units in full '47-millimeter' and some abbreviated/symbolic e.g. '4,000 nmi'. It might be worth checking if this issue applies to many of these tables in ship articles. In a summary table, I think it's fine to use abbreviations/symbols for all.
 * All fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The large amount of vertical whitespace in the Construction section looks weird if you read this article on a < 1080p screen/browser. Presumably it's there due to problems with image flow (running into the next section heading)? Tijfo098 (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Buggie111 (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead comment: The material that is presented in the lead is sufficiently well-written, but as a whole the lead is not yet complete. There needs to be material to summarize the Design and Construction sections. At the very least, the lead should answer the question "How big was this thing?" --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments - leaning support: This is an interesting article and quite easy to read. Nothing major to be fixed. I'll do some spot-checks and be back to in a few days. TK  (talk)  00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead -
 * this sentence has too much going on and is difficult to follow: "After she was slightly damaged during the surprise attack on Port Arthur in early February, she participated in several attempts to break out from the port, most notably the Battle of the Yellow Sea, where she was damaged by several shells but managed to make it back to port." Should be split or rewritten
 * The Battle of the Yellow Sea should be mentioned in the lead
 * Characteristics -
 * LT or long tons? Both are used.
 * First paragraph, second sentence about the crew doesn't seem to fit. Can it reorganized somehow?
 * First it says Ekaterina II has six guns, then it says she had seven guns. Is this a mistake or are they different types of gun?
 * This sentence needs clarification: " During a three-hour test on 11 July 1900, several instruments measured higher speed and power than in her sister ships. It turned out to be a flaw in one of the mechanisms, as it read the same measurements on both the Poltava and Petropavlosk, while other instruments read normally for each of the ships" - was the problem fixed?
 * Wartime service -
 * A few minutes later / several minutes later. Can these be reworded - it's a bit repetitive
 * Make sure all instances of Sevastapol are in italics
 * This sentence would be better if it were recast: "During three weeks of attacks in which 80 torpedoes were launched, four hit"

"A few minutes later, Mikasa was hit by two 12-inch (305 mm) shells and one 6-inch (152 mm) shell from Retvizan and Sevastopol, which caused 40 casualties. Several minutes after that, when it seemed that the Russians would be able to escape to Vladivostok, two 12-inch shells from Asashi penetrated the conning tower of the Russian flagship Tsesarevich, killing Vitgeft and the helmsman, severely wounding the captain, and causing the ship to come to a dead stop after executing a sharp turn. Thinking that this was a maneuver planned by Vitgeft, the Russian line started to execute the same turn, causing all of the ships directly behind Tsesarevich, including Sevastopol, to maneuver wildly to avoid hitting the stationary flagship. Prince Pavel Ukhtomski, second in command of the squadron, who was on the Peresvyet, proceeded to signal the other Russian ships via semaphore to steam back to Port Arthur, although the signals were only gradually recognized by Pobeda, Poltava, Pallada and Sevastopol."
 * Source spot-check: These sentences below from the "Wartime service" section are all cited to page 52-53 of  Forczyk. I know it's only snippit view, but using keyword search phrases from the text, I'm not finding any results on those pages. However some results are showing up on page 43, . Is this a page numbering error?

Will check a few more. TK  (talk)  00:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments: After an initial read, two sentences struck me as containing factual errors, or at least being unclear.


 * From the "Design" section: "Some characteristics were also copied from the French battleship Brennus and the American Indiana-class battleships, such as the flush-deck hull and high freeboard."
 * The Indiana-class ships were notable for having a low freeboard (they were designed to be coast-defense battleships), so it seems odd that they would be mentioned as providing a model to the Sevastopol in this regard. If the high freeboard claim is solely in reference to the Brennus, this sentence should be clarified.


 * From the "Characteristics" section: "Mounting a main battery of four 12-inch (305 mm) guns in two twin turrets, Sevastopol's armament was only eclipsed by the Ekaterina II-class battleships, which were a decade older, mounting six of the same type of gun."
 * Sevastopol's guns were not of the same type as the Ekaterina II class -- she mounted 12"/40 caliber Pattern 1895 guns, in comparison to her predecessor's 12"/30 caliber Pattern 1877s. The Pattern 1895s were very different from the 1877s, using smokeless powder, among other things.  They were also significantly more powerful.  Finally, the reference to Sevastopol in the sentence shoud be in italics.

Hope this helps. Jrt989 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Buggie, are you able to address the last few comments? Karanacs (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Buggie doesn't seem to have edited for a few weeks, and my ping for another MILHIST reviewer to take over has gone unheeded. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing, Buggie has not edited since May 22, and there are outstanding concerns about accuracy of info per sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review: First three images are clearly pre-Russian revolution, so PD tag is appropriate. On the fourth, while a year on the publication of "Records of Naval Battles in Meiji 37th, 38th vol. 2" may be helpful, it clearly looks to be PD for Japan. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


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