Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Brazilian cruiser Bahia


 * 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.

Brazilian cruiser Bahia

 * Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  

Part of the fastest class of cruisers in the world when commissioned, Bahia was a participant in the "Revolt of the Whip". She then served in both World Wars as a convoy escort, but in 1945 she blew up and sank in about three minutes with few survivors. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  19:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice work on this article, Ed. I'll review the article in more detail later, but right now I wanted to point out a glaring problem in the infobox. Right now, it says that the ship was launched more than a year before she was laid down. Can you fix that? Parsecboy (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Have fixed it; nice catch! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I reviewed this article GA today, and found no issues that haven't already been fixed that would prevent this article from meeting A-class requirements. Excellent work again, Ed :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * These two sentences need work. Massive explosions incapacitated the ship, and she sank within minutes with a large loss of life. Incapacitated how? Blew her stern off, what? This resulted in a striking aesthetic change, with the exhaust being trunked into three funnels now, rather than three Typo, I think? More comments later. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources don't specify, though something catastrophic (like the stern being blown off) happened; the ship (3,100 tons) went down in three minutes! Parsec fixed your second point. Thanks! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks good, but when you mention that "While firing, he accidentally hit the depth charges on the stern—a direct consequence of the lack of guide rails that would normally prohibit the guns from being aimed at the ship." it seems rather out of the blue - if you plan to bring up the guide rails, they should be introduced better and/or covered more extensively or earlier in the article. – Joe   N  02:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. I'll try to introduce them better, but they aren't important enough to be mentioned earlier in the article. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Yet another great article about a Brazilian warship. I think that it needs a little more work to reach A class status though. My comments are:
 * While not directly relevant to A-class status, I don't think that the lead para meets MOS:BEGIN
 * Can the 'Construction and commissioning' section be expanded?
 * Is there anything more which can be said about this ship's experiences in the "Revolt of the Whip"?
 * Was Bahia involved in anti-submarine patrols before the formal declaration of war in 1917? - the current text is a bit unclear
 * The sentence "Bahia was used extensively during the Second World War for escorting and patrolling, conducting 67 of the former and 15 or the latter" is a bit unclear - did she escort 67 convoys and make 15 patrols? - if so, it would probably be better to state this.
 * Was there a reason that guard rails to stop the 20mm guns hitting the ship weren't fitted? (this is probably the most embarrassing fate to befall any major ship I've seen, by the way). Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and again, I disagree. :| The first paragraph in itself does not, but the first sentence does, I believe.
 * Possibly with stuff about the 1904 naval authorizations.
 * Not really. Although she took part, the principal ships were really the brand-new Minas Geraes and Sao Paulo.
 * I am not sure. The source itself is not clear; it says something like 'the Brazilian Navy patrolled...' It's really not specific on that point.
 * I changed a typo "or" to "of". Was that what you were asking me to do?
 * I was more thinking about the "escorting and patrolling, conducting 67 of the former and 15 or the latter" bit Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. ;-) Was this what you were looking for, or did you want me to restructure the sentence? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  12:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would assume so, but the missing guide rails are only mentioned in connection with the explosion; nothing is said about why they were not there, just that they weren't. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * 36 cites to a Brazilian Navy document written in Portuguese? How was this document translated? How reliable was the translator? How can anyone reading an article written in English check facts against a document written in Portuguese? Despite the language barrier, this isn't much different than 36 cites to a DANFS article. I'll stop here, I have a headache now. --Brad (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a little-known Brazilian ship. What would you expect? For translation, I used Google Translate; I can't provide a direct link to the translation because it is a Microsoft Word document. For what it is worth, I asked the Brazilian who helped me with BRAZILIAN BATTLESHIP Minas Geraes to look this article over. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a professional translator and I can mostly vouch for the accuracy of the translation, although I am viciously biased against Google Translate :) I've made corrections as necessary. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input on this issue. I'd hope that if the questions arises again that Ed can point to this conversation. --Brad (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, there's no such thing as "Curtiss, Thornycroft & Brown". It should be Thornycroft (as in, the boilers) and Brown-Curtiss (the turbines). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I'll try to fix the company issue now. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  14:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left in places where conversion templates are still needed.
 * This article needs blue link reduction and a copy edit. Some of the sentences are awkward though I'm not the English expert, someone needs to address this. --Brad (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a conversion template for the first mention of it, but as the others were in the same section and a subsection, I did not add {convert}'s.
 * Can't really say much about the need for a copyedit (I'm a little close to my own writing). As to the blue links, however, which ones do you think are unneeded? I just wanted to be sure that the article was accessible to a general reader who may not, for example, know what a transport aircraft or the stern of a ship is. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's links like this: Armstrong Whitworth's Elswick, Newcastle upon Tyne that are glaring out at me. I'd think that if a person was interested in the geographical details they could follow the shipyard link. See if you can find one of those mythical copy editors to have a look. --Brad (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. I'll try to hunt these down and kill them, while simultaneously finding a copyeditor. With thanks, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  01:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the blue link troubles yesterday. --Brad (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw, and I thank you. However, I added some back, because general readers&mdash;ones who do not know anything about ships&mdash;would not know what these terms were otherwise...
 * You do realize that you've linked to Central Powers twice within two sentences? Otherwise I disagree that something like torpedo boat needs linking. Doesn't "torpedo" and "boat" explain enough? How about "troop" and "transport"? --Brad (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I did not; thanks. Torpedo boat needs linking because it's a specific class of warship, one which could provide additional information for a reader of the article. Lastly, if you didn't notice, I left troop transport unlinked as that probably would not provide much additional information, especially with a link to the ship right there. :-) — Ed17   (talk  •  contribs)  17:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I support your article Argumentative Ed. --Brad (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brad, apologies for arguing the points, but many thanks for your help. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  20:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * also did his thing and copyedited the article; I still have a few issues to clear up, but for the most part it should be reading much more smoothly. Thanks BH! :-) — Ed17   (talk  •  contribs)  02:08, 22 September 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.