Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)/archive2


 * 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 Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011.

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)

 * Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Back again, back again. Here I am to nominate Sevastopol, a rather boring Pacific Fleet battleship, for FA. I've been working on this since January of 2010, with a GAN, two ACRs, a PR, failed FAC and DYK in this article's past. I have also adressed nearly all comments from the previous FAC. Buggie111 (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Check for small inconsistencies in references like doubled periods
 * Well, couldn't find any double periods, but I have to check some more.
 * Done. Buggie111 (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Use hyphens for ISBNs, not dashes
 * As far as I remember, I'm using hyphens
 * Removed entirely. Buggie111 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why "New York" in Citations but "New York, New York" in References? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Misspelled Watt's first name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Buggie111 (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. If you don't actually have access to the book to verify the spelling, click on the ISBN number and then on "find this book" on Worldcat.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My gut told me somthing was wrong. NOW it's fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments -- this looks pretty good to me. Referencing, structure, detail and supporting materials seem fine. Made a few changes to prose; one outstanding point:
 * ...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. The problem was presumably fixed. -- I think I get the gist of this, but it's a bit confusing as expressed, and I wonder if it's even that important. I certainly don't think we can keep "presumably fixed", which sounds like editorialising on your part even if it's not -- how exactly does the source describe it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll remove it, I agree about the non-importance. Buggie111 (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


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