Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/ARA Moreno


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted EyeSerene talk 13:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

ARA Moreno

 * Nominator(s): — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  

Moreno was a product of the early 1900s South American naval arms race, a topic which I need to write an article on. That and the intrigue surrounding her construction are the most interesting parts of the article (I believe Argentina should have sold Rivadavia and Moreno, what do you think?) Virtually all of Moreno's active life was spent on diplomatic visits and training cruises, barring a 1924–25 modernization in the United States, and she was scrapped in 1956. Any and all comments are welcome and appreciated. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  08:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments This is a strong article, but I think that it needs a bit more polishing to reach A class:
 * The detailed material on the diplomatic and political maneuvering concerning the ships probably belongs in the article on the class rather than the articles on the individual ships
 * I tried to include a summary of it; see User:The ed17/Sandbox/Rivadavia class battleship for all the rest. It's a lot. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a lot of material, and should do justice to the topic (I read through lots of similar material as part of developing the Dutch 1913 battleship proposal article!) I think that it could be trimmed a bit more here though - a paragraph at most seems appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The prose needs a copy edit. Some examples:
 * "She was named after Mariano Moreno, a key member of the Primera Junta, and she was the second of two Rivadavia-class battleships; her sister was Rivadavia Moreno was launched on 23 September 1911 and completed in March 1915." - should be two sentences, and I'm suspect that this is too much information on her sister for the lead
 * "This angered the American government, as the ships had been built with the latest advances in American warship technology" - was the US Government upset about its technology being unappreciated (as is implied by the text) or was it concerned about this being transferred to other countries
 * "The Argentine government, bolstered by socialist gains in the legislature, refused to back down. No less than three bills proposing the sale of the battleships were introduced in May 1914, but all were defeated by late June." - these two sentences seem to contradict each other. I presume what they mean is that the Government was determined to sell the ships, but could never get the numbers to do so in the legislature.
 * I made some edits; does this one work for both of you? "The Argentine government, bolstered by socialist gains in the legislature, supported several bills introduced in the legislature in May 1914 proposing the sale of the battleships, but all were defeated by late June." - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While I don't know how the Argentine government operated now or in 1914, I imagine that the government introduced bills rather than merely "supported" them and the three bills were introduced successively rather than simultaneously. Nick-D (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Schenia isn't specific here, but three bills proposed in May and defeated by June? Even with the less bureaucracy of those times, that seems rather quick... — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does Schenia say who or what office introduced the bills? - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless stated elsewhere, it's reasonable to assume that the government introduced the bills (as is standard for parliamentary-type government structures). Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I meant Livermore, and he doesn't. "Recent elections in Argentina had resulted in socialist gains, and the naval attache reported a strong sentiment in congress in favor of selling the ships and using the money to open more schools. The question was fought out at the session of the chamber of deputies in May and was not decided until after a prolonged and bitter struggle. [...] Three bills favoring the sale of the dreadnoughts were introduced and debated in secret session. The forces of economy and retrenchment were led by a distinguished statesman, Senor Drago, but in the end the naval party triumphed. On June 22 Lorillard reported that the bills had been defeated, and the charge warned against further delay in turning the vessels over to the Argentine republic." (Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 46). — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "The beginning of the First World War reopened these rumors" - suggest "the" rather than "these" as the rumours haven't been referred to in the para
 * "The German and British ambassadors both complained to the United States' Department of State" - were these the ambassadors to the US or Argentina?
 * "For the United States, this was an unheard-of feature, as alcohol had been banned on US Navy ships" - as alcohol was served on Royal Navy vessels this probably wasn't "unheard of" to Americans with an interest in naval matters
 * "Moreno was forced to put in at Rockland, Maine—where many of the observers on board were left to be brought back by train to Camden—before proceeding to the Fore River Shipyard in Massachusetts for repairs. Fore River was utilized because that company built the engines that were installed in the ship." - the second sentence here is a bit awkward
 * "Moreno was given to waiting Argentine sailors" - I presume you mean she was delivered to the government? The current text suggests she was a present to the impatient sailors ;)
 * "She was immediately assigned to the Argentine Navy's First Division, based out the major naval base of Puerto Belgrano, where she remained until 1923, when she was put into the reserve fleet." - suggest changing this to two sentances
 * "As Argentina remained neutral in the war, Moreno was utilized little" - this is awkward and unclear. If Argentina stayed out of the war, how was she used at all? Moreover, did she stay in port during this period?
 * I tried to respond to the other points, Nick and Ed, but I don't know what to do with this one; I don't know what the ship did during the war. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No one else is real specific either. To me, it implies that she saw a little service in patrolling or something, but it doesn't state that explicitly. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "13 short tons (12 long tons; 12 t) of tallow were needed to grease the slipways for the launch." - probably not all that important ;)
 * Are there any specialist works on the Argentine Navy which could be consulted? The Spanish-language Wikipedia references a book entitled Battleships and Cruisers of Argentina. which seems worth consulting prior to a FAC, if at all possible. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, as I cannot read Spanish. :) I'm not planning on bringing it to FAC without those; I'm hoping DPdH can help with that, but he hasn't responded to me as of yet. Thanks for the review, Nick. My articles tend to get a lot better after you've looked them over. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me know if/when the new material has been worked in and I'll be happy to look it over. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - just to help the closing coordinator, that comment is relevant to a FAC and not this ACR. Thanks for your kind comment Ed - I'd say the same about your reviews. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, the article on es.wiki is 3 short paragraphs, with no refs, just a bibliography ... why do we think that Spanish-language book might be important? Because of the title? - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. There seems to be no reason to assume that the es.wiki article is in any sense 'complete' and this appears to be only book covering this topic in detail I could find so it's worth consulting in order to ensure that FA criterion 1(c) is met. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to note, there's a copy of the book available at Notre Dame: . Parsecboy (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, User talk:DPdH added the book as a ref to another article and I've left a message for them, though they may not be around. If they don't respond, I'll get it through ILL. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support My above comments are now addressed - great work Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Comments Just a couple to start of with (sorry, I'd meant to be more thorough, but I'm falling asleep here). I will come back tomorrow:
 * No dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
 * image(s) are appropriately licenced IMO (no action required);
 * the image could have alt text added to it (suggestion);
 * in the lead "This followed a series of mishaps" - should this be: "This was followed by a series of mishaps"? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * there was an italics issue, but I've rectified this, other than that I couldn't really find anything that I could think of that needed fixing. Looks pretty good to me, although, as I've said before I don't know that much about ships. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and fix! I've copyedited that part of the lead, feel free to take a look — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I put in an ILL order yesterday on Acorazados y cruceros de la armada argentina, 1881-1992, but the closest copy is at Notre Dame (535 miles away), and my library says they don't usually do ILLs outside the Southeast ... but they're going to try to get it anyway. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Book just arrived from Notre Dame yesterday via ILL, I've shared the relevant material with Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Link to Swiftsure class battleship in the line about the Chilean battleships being purchased, and whatever cruiser class it was that Argentina was attempting to acquire.
 * Do you know the details of the refit in the mid 1920s?
 * In the lead: "This was followed by a series of engine problems" seems out of place. What is the "this" to which is being referred? The delivery to Argentina? Also, I prefer at least two paragraphs in the lead, could you split the paragraph in two? Also, it bears mentioning in the lead that the ship was ordered in response to Brazilian naval expansion and border disputes.
 * This is no biggie, but are there any other pictures that could be used in the article?
 * All in all, an excellent article, Ed. I look forward to supporting it for A-class. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Links added, lead tweaked and fixed, refit will have to wait for tomorrow (aka early tomorrow morning). Pictures are a negative until the LOC emails me back, and if they give me a negative, then my answer will still be negative. ;) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  09:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments
 * I'd like to see a brief written description of the ship.
 * No armor section in the infobox
 * Needs a conversion for the shp in the infobox--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Second two done. I don't normally add a written description in my individual ship articles; I leave that to the class articles... — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  09:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that it makes everything in the infobox uncited which is a real problem. It's worth a paragraph or two, IMO, to get past that issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak support pending the addition of the above comments. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments
 * "... both were delivered and kept. When Moreno was completed, ... Moreno was finally delivered ...": something in there isn't working for me; chronological order would help. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the last paragraph, does Whitley really mention November 1939 and then imply that sometime later, WWII broke out in Europe? Sounds odd. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. I've done a second copyedit, and comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.