Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais

 * Nominator(s): — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs) 

An early dreadnought, Minas Gerais did virtually nothing of note after the "Revolt of the Whip" and so there is little information on the ship. However, I believe that I have the most comprehensive article on the ship that is on the web. Note: I am aware that there are a couple of stories in Spanish about Minas Gerais and her sister on the Brazilian Navy's website, but as they don't entirely match up with the information in the other sources I used, I have not used any information from the stories. This passed GA after a review from. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

all the best, Cam (Chat) 04:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  00:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments. I echo many of Cam's comments above, plus:
 * "UK" should not be written as "U.K."
 * "coupled with British naval mutinies over pay cuts" - what does this have to do with the Brazilian fleet?
 * "who immediately sped up their timetable" - is there a more elegant way of saying this?
 * "After murdering a few officers" - use of "a few" makes it sound like a trival action to my ear, "several" would be better, an exact figure best. Also, can you name the captain?
 * "on the ship" - ship used too frequently, try "kept on board" or similar.
 * "they could not do much to stop the mutineers" - much, or anything at all? Be clear.
 * "The government did give them official pardons and a statement of regret, but a decree was passed on the 28th that many considered to reverse the amnesty" - firstly, use "28 November" instead of "28th". Secondly, what does this mean? Did they arrest people for the mutiny (in which case the amnesty was reversed) or didn't they (in which case it seems to have held).
 * "war was declared on the 25th" as above, give the month.
 * "sailed out of the harbor and sailed to" - second "sailed" is redundant

Otherwise good, --Jackyd101 (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that these have all been addressed. I have no name for the captain, by the way. Cheers, — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  00:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments No problems reported with external links. Two disambig links need to be found and if at all possible fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dabs have been fixed. Thanks! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  00:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - issues have been resolved. Cam (Chat) 16:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. A few changes.
 * Why would the design changes after Dreadnaught make it so that only two could be built?
 * I don't know. There is little info on these ships, and what I have says that and nothing more... I'd assume that the new ships cost more? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How does the world not need rubber during WWI? I know it wasn't as vital as it was in WWII, but still, trucks, guns? Surely war would use a lot of rubber.
 * I'll look into this more, but remember that trucks were in their infancy then :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please clarify so it doesn't seem like only the US and Germany are at war in WWI.
 * The bit about San Paulo's boilers failing confuses me, did they fail on the trip, and if so why did they fail then, and not during the training exercises she had presumably undergone?
 * Yes, on the trip; I don't know more because what I have says that and nothing more... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Otherwise looks good, a fun read - I never knew that Brazil had battleships. – Joe   N  21:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joe! —  Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Brazil entered the twentieth century with high aspirations. The country was in an era of prosperity. Brazil controlled the world's coffee and rubber markets. Gold had been discovered and offered the hope of great wealth. The political unrest that had occurred in the transition from Empire to Republic seemed to be over. True, problems lay ahead, but it seemed that many had been solved. (emphasis mine)"
 * Gold had been discovered in Minas Gerais in the 1700s, was there another gold rush or something similiar that pumped some extra money into the government's coffers to help pay for the ship? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I forgot to reply to your query on the talk page; my apologies. I don't know what exactly happened; all I know is that Conway's 1906–1921 on p. 403 says this:


 * — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:16, 14 April 2009 (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.