Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Minas Geraes-class battleship


 * 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Minas Geraes-class battleship

 * Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan]

The Minas Geraes class cooked off a South American naval arms race and briefly catapulted Brazil into 'major power' status in the eyes of the world. Unfortunately for Brazil, crews onboard rebelled in the year they were delivered, and while they sat rusting at the anchors in the next few years, advancements in naval technology rendered them outmoded, and later naval additions by Argentina eclipsed their power. Still, the story of their order and the reaction the world had to it is one of the more interesting plots I have written about. Hope you enjoy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments This is a very detailed and high quality article, but I think that it needs a bit more work:
 * What's the purpose of including the Portuguese language translation of 'battleship' in the first sentence?
 * "As such, the order caused quite a stir among the powers, most of whom speculated that the ships were actually destined for a naval power" is a bit vauge (who were 'the powers', for instance?)
 * "where four Brazilian ships demanded" - the crews of the ships demanded this, not the ships themselves
 * "Two factions warred" - 'argued', perhaps?
 * "an Admiral Norhonha" - why the 'an'? (were there several?)
 * "The basic structure needed to launch Minas Geraes was delayed by a four-month strike" - what's a 'basic structure' in this context?
 * "Minas Geraes was completed and given to Brazil" - 'handed over' to Brazil would be more appropriate
 * "The British House of Commons discussed purchasing the ships in March 1908 to bolster the Royal Navy and ensure they would not be sold to a foreign country" - this is a bit unclear given that the ships were always intended to be sold to Brazil. Does it mean that the debate was over selling the ships to Brazil or over concerns that the Brazilians might sell them to a different country? (note also that British-style parliaments 'debate' rather than 'discuss' matters)
 * Were the British parliament's views on whether to sell the Battleships split along party lines? (its a big deal to argue against your party's policies in British-style parliaments, so members of the government party publicly opposing the sale indicate that there were significant divisions)
 * Calling Brazil "hitherto unknown on the world stage" seems a bit hard to justify (and is rather old-fashioned wording)
 * "The British thought either the Germans, Japanese, or Americans were actually buying the ships" - who are 'the British' here? It seems unlikely that the British government thought that the Brazilians would on-sell the ships.
 * "The ships were staffed" - ships are 'crewed' or 'manned' rather than staffed
 * Can anything be said about the standard of crew accommodation and/or whether the size of the crew changed over time? Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We're tusseling about this on Almirante Latorre-class battleship. :-)
 * That was poor summarizing again, but the vagueness is somewhat purposeful -- I don't want to list a number of nations. New sentence: "As such, the order caused quite a stir among major powers in the world, most of whom speculated that the ships were actually destined for a rival nation."
 * Changed
 * Changed per your suggestion
 * The hull and a minimum of the superstructure, see File:Minas Geraes launch.jpg. I could not think of a better way to word this without needlessly complicating the narrative...
 * Changed per your suggestion
 * Many in Parliament felt Brazil would sell the battleships to Germany, Japan, or the US.
 * I was wondering the same thing, but my sources only give individual names...
 * Have you Googled them? (most will probably have Wikipedia articles as well). Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to give the perspective of the newspapers, not present a point of fact. How can I reorganize the sentence to make that more clear? I've partially altered it by replacing "hitherto" with "previously".
 * British newspapers. Good catch.
 * Hmm, that was odd wording... I've changed it to "crewed"
 * I can say a little (actually quite a bit) about how the crew was treated prior to the 1910 revolution, but otherwise my sources do not touch on this at all. Thanks very much for the review, Nick. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I think that 'encouraçados' should be removed from the lead as being pointless and confusing, and I'd like to see the bit about the British parliamentary debates fleshed out to clarify if it was the Government vs the Opposition or members of the Government expressing concern, but these are all more relevant to FA criteria than A class and all my other comments have been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

 Comments Support
 * I would clarify the dollar amounts in 2008 dollars citing [Measuringworth]. I would also suggest doing the same with the individual ship articles.
 * Also I'm curious why the cost is in dollars since the currency in Brazil at the time was the real - did they pay for the ships in dollars? I suspect since the source for this information used was from the US government in 1912 they converted the réis into dollars - this fact probably needs to be double checked, and ultimately cited in réis.
 * The Mineas Geraes ship article just specifies a beam, while this article splits it into mean and max. Also, the ship article specifies the displacement in tonnes, with Lt and ST in parens, while the class specifies the displacement in long tonnes with tonnes in parens and omits the short tons - I would make these consistent.  Kirk (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In a previous FAC of mine, it was found Measuring Worth uses US inflation numbers which do not apply to the relative worth of a Latin American ship. (see ARA Moreno's FAC)
 * I can't? My sources don't give a Brazilian currency figure, similar to the Argentinian and Chilean ships.
 * Which FAC had that discussion? I'd like to read it.  I'll see if I can find you a better source for the cost figures.  Kirk (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ARA Moreno's FAC, and thanks :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To summarize, we're looking at the value of the real in relation to its purchasing power over time & Measuringworth just covers the UK and US, and we don't actually know the cost of the ship in old réis, just the conversion made by some nameless government bureaucrat in 1912 to dollars; I'm going to try to find the 1910 value in old réis. Kirk (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find the réis number, but the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica has the value for the ship in pounds at £1821400, which converts to approximately the same dollar figure cited in the article, so at least it has more than one source. Kirk (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I acquired Topliss in the time since I wrote the ship article -- I have to get around to updating it to Chicago citations, removing short tons, adding information from Scheina & Topliss, and updating the specifications (basically, I need to reformat it to conform with this article and the others in the series). :-) Thanks for the review, Kirk! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A1 is good; and, comments on inflation
 * I'm the nasty fellow who suggested that inflating 19XX USD amounts to 20XX using US GDP/Purchasing power is not good economics when the USD figure for the ship really represents Brazillian GDP at 19XX. You'd need a Brazillian inflation series (preferably in GDP: battleships aren't bought in individual's purchasing power, but out of a percentage of total economy).
 * One potential end around for inflation figures is to give a sense of historical scale. "The Minas Geraes class cost was given as USD$8,000,000 each by an American expert.  For comparison purposes, USD$8,000,000 is equivalent to the Brazillian government 1910 budget for "xxxx", or equivalent to Brazil's thirty-xth largest 1910 export in terms of value, its video-game merchandise export industry." Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nasty fellow? On the contrary, I'm certain I have purposely asked you to review my articles before. Definitely not nasty. :-) I'm sure Scheina has a price for the ships in Naval History. I had completely forgotten about it! I should be able to add this tomorrow or the day after. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember the FAC debate about comparing unlike forms of money to have been long and painful :). It feels nasty because FAC editors are the kind of editor who like to make their article readable, and it is great to give modern "equivalents" of past values.  It is just that the measuring worth template on wikipedia only covers the most trivial, consumer goods, oriented form of inflation and value change over time.  Lets not get into the economic problem of value over time for Marxist political economists... it is a biggie :).  Fifelfoo (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked 'Naval History' - page 86 calculates the price of all three dreadnaughts (the Minas G class + Rio) to be £6,110,100, plus maintenance for 5 years, £3,750,000, ammunition, £605,520, docking facilities, £832,000, and uses this valuation which I think is along the lines Fifelfoo suggested:
 * A conteporary Brazilian newspaper calculated the sum would have been sufficient to lay 3,125 miles of railroad tracks or to provide homesteads for 30,300 immigrant families.
 * Later he discusses the problems of actually getting the funds to maintain these ships, which didn't happen all that often! Hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Kirk, that sounds great, we don't have to rely on wikipedians calculating anything, we can just quote a commentator of the time as to the massive economic impact. I like that he uses railway miles (perhaps not so immediate to today's reader), but 30,000 homesteads does start to make an impact for the contemporary reader.  Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kirk, I wasn't aware you owned it too! I'm about to go to bed, but I'm back from San Francisco again and with all of my sources, so I'll add that information tomorrow along with making sure I didn't miss anything else from my sources. Regarding 3,125 miles, that's double the length of the First Transcontinental Railroad's western part... Ed [talk] [majestic titan]
 * I've added the cost information in a footnote and some other information I missed in a couple sources. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me for A - are you doing a GA review too? Kirk (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was, but I don't want to add to the backlog. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments - the advantage of writer's block is that it has ended my copyeditor's block. From the top
 * Lead
 * In 1904, Brazil began a major naval building program that included three small battleships - I'm of the mindset that "small" should be narrowed down a little more (before reading the rest of the article, I ballparked 12,000-15,000LT as a "small battleship").
 * The ships surrendered after four days and a bill granting amnesty to all involved - for some reason this sentence is a little bit awkward. I'll see what I can do with it.
 * Background
 * ...with Baron de Rio Branco remarking that caving to the American demands would render Brazil as powerless as suzerain Cuba - citation at the end please
 * Bidding and Construction
 * In addition, many supporters of the small-ship plan were killed when the old Aquidaba exploded in 1906 - it's a bit unclear to me - are we talking literal deaths or metaphorical deaths. If it's the former you may want to explain it a bit more (why were they all on the ship?), if it's the latter I suggest a different word.
 * Perhaps mention the nationality of the Elswick Ordnance Company (or failing that, what city it's based in)
 * I'm just going to point out - at this point in the copyedit - that you do seem to love your commas Eddie...
 * International Reaction
 * Further points as well - you don't need to wikilink "Keel Laying" so much (I'm up to three in one article!)
 * I've removed the reference to Argentina and Chile being the other two naval powers in South America because you've already established that quite clearly in the previous sections.
 * Service Histories
 * Now in the revolt section you seem to be in love w/ semicolons. My one TA has really hammered this home this semester: you use semicolons to separate parts of the sentence only if each part can function as its own sentence. "low pay" is not a full sentence :P
 * Naval officers and the president of Brazil were staunchly opposed to amnesty, and quickly began planning to assault the rebel ships; the former believed that such ana ction was necessary to restore the service's honor - what was the president's rationale for opposing amnesty?
 * They were all humiliated by it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Specifications
 * The main battery was arranged with four superfiring turrets, two each fore and aft, and two placed en echelon - en echelon is a rather jargon-esque term; could you use a more basic descriptor?
 * Would "wing turrets" be better? "On the sides" makes it sound like they were mounted on the hull itself casemate-style. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The ships could carry 2350 tonnes of coal and 400 tonnes, and... - 400 tonnes of what? (my guess is oil, but I'm not sure)
 * Yeah, it was oil. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also performed a full copyedit. Excellent work! Cam (Chat)(Prof) 20:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cam, sorry it took me so long to address your concerns. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments coming soon. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Am awaiting them, Dank. Thank you very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. "Per conciseness", etc., refer to the checklist. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Brazil became the third country to have a dreadnought under construction, before traditional major powers like Germany, France or Russia. As such, the order caused quite a stir among major powers in the world ...": "as such" dangles; it's not going to be clear to some readers what word or group of words this refers to. Danglers like this one are common and often fine in informal writing, but in formal writing, it's reasonable to expect the reader to understand that one sentence flows logical from the next one without using "as such" to point that out. - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "many of whom speculated that the ships were actually destined for a rival nation. These suspicions never came true ...": many of whom incorrectly speculated that the ships were actually destined for a rival nation. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "the ships were delivered in 1910. ¶ Soon after their arrival ...": Soon after their delivery in 1910. - Dank (push to talk) 01:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Montevideo, Uruguay": Montevideo, Uruguay,. See User:Dank/MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 02:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know we've had a hard time settling on first sentences, but it still isn't working for me. How about "The Minas Geraes class consisted of two battleships ..."? - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Each ship would be armed with twelve 10-inch (25 cm) guns mounted in six twin turrets. These turrets would be mounted in a hexagonal configuration, similar to the later German Nassau-class battleships.": Each ship would be armed with twelve 10-inch (25 cm) guns mounted in six twin turrets in a hexagonal configuration, similarly to the later German Nassau-class battleships. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The basic structure needed to launch Minas Geraes was delayed by a four-month strike, but she was eventually launched on 10 September 1908": Construction of the partial hull needed to launch Minas Geraes was delayed by a four-month strike to 10 September 1908. - Dank (push to talk) 05:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "astonished the naval world." [in quotes]: ""astonished the naval world". WP:LQ is important if you're headed to FAC; even the delegates check for compliance sometimes.  Chicago disagrees, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Cherbourg, France": Cherbourg, France,. See See WP:MHCL. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "the start of the rebellion was delayed": the rebellion was delayed. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "which included the use of whips or lashes (chibata), which eventually became a symbol of the revolt; being struck on the hand by a ferrule (a practice known as bôlo); low pay; a refusal to educate incompetent sailors, and long hours worked on a typical day.": They objected to low pay, long hours, inadequate training for incompetent sailors, and punishments including bôlo (being struck on the hand with a ferrule) and the use of whips or lashes (chibata), which eventually became a symbol of the revolt. See WP:MHCL. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Officers were used to crew the cruiser Rio Grande do Sul, Bahias sister which carried ten 4.7-inch guns, and some smaller warships, and ...": Officers crewed some smaller warships and the cruiser Rio Grande do Sul, Bahias sister ship with ten 4.7-inch guns. See WP:MHCL. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All of these look good. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Your call :
 * If Admiral Norhonha is notable, I believe he should be redlinked. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a first name to link to -- for whatever reason, Scheina only gives the last name. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The small amount of work done on the three battleships was torn up beginning on 7 January 1907.": This needs a little more detail. Are we talking about sending partial hulls to ship-breakers? - Dank (push to talk) 05:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's literally all I know. Most sources don't even mention that three ships were actually laid down before the actual ship class was built, and Topliss doesn't say give it more than a cursory mention. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I tried "The three battleships on which construction had just begun were demolished beginning on 7 January 1907." - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the long block quote in Minas Geraes-class battleship: Cryptic, an occasional reviewer at FAC, objected to a long-ish quote in the last comment (currently) at Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō. He's likely to object to this quote, and probably other shorter quotes, for the same reason, and I think he's going to get support for that position at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to keep it for now, we'll see what happens. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Other Afro-Brazilian sailors—many of whom were former slaves freed under the Lei Áurea (abolition) but forced to enter the navy, or sons of former slaves—had been planning a revolt for some time, and Menezes became the catalyst.": I've been fiddling with this, and it's still unwieldy. Is it okay to delete "or sons of former slaves" and get rid of the dashes? That is, were there a lot of sons of former slaves? - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would assume there were many sons – the law was enacted 22 years before the mutiny! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I kept your content and broke it into two sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "despite a previous belief that an intact Brazilian Navy": I don't understand "intact", or the meaning of putting it in italics. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I tried modifying this to "During the revolt, the ships were noted by many observers to be well-handled, despite a previous belief that the Brazilian Navy was incapable of effectively operating the ships on a normal basis, even without being split by a rebellion." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The 4.7-inch guns were often used for shots over the city": why would they often be shooting over the city? - Dank (push to talk)
 * To prove that they were willing to take action if necessary, I think. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "the Brazilian navy elite": who are the elite? - Dank (push to talk)
 * Admirals and higher-ups that believed lashing and corporal punishment was necessary to keep the black sailors in line. Basically they were the aforementioned naval officers, but I had already used that term previously. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "after salt water was run into the hydraulic system": This allows several interpretations. If "after salt water contaminated the  hydraulic system" works, I'd go with that. - Dank (push to talk) 20:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be fine, and I've made the change. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "the material condition of the ships", "poor material condition": I'm not familiar with the phrase, does it mean something different than the condition of the ships? - Dank (push to talk)
 * Poor maintenance leading to a poor "material condition" -- ie no overhauls, sparse routine maintenance, leading to engine problems, etc. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a position on how much stuff there should be on the histories of the ships in the class. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Does this mean you have a problem with there being too much or too little? I'm confused... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The amount of overlap between related articles isn't a subject that style guides generally try to tackle, so I really can't say. I think it's up to Wikipedians and wikiprojects to make these calls. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "They had a beam of 83 feet (25 m), a mean draft of 25 feet (7.6 m), a maximum draft of 28 feet (8.5 m), and displaced 18,976 long tons (19,281 tonnes (t)) normal and 20,900 long tons (21,200 t) at full load.": "normally" rather than normal, and FAC reviewers sometimes object to nested parentheses unless you really need them. Also, please fix the WP:MHCL problem. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I think I've fixed this, but I left "normal" because "normal displacement" is the technical term for it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "intriguing": What was intriguing about it? - Dank (push to talk)
 * I went with "curious". Basically the VTE engines were a weird choice because all the other British dreadnoughts being built were using steam turbines. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Co-ord comment: as this will be due for closure in less than 48 hours, could reviewers please state whether their comments been dealt with? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Ed17 has dealt with any of my comments yet. - Dank (push to talk) 22:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm addressing them now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I have addressed all of these. Thanks very much Dank! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. I made some edits based on your answers here; feel free to revert or discuss. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One more thing: "noted by many observers to be well-handled, despite a previous belief" ... it would be best to tell in general terms who these observers were, then say "despite their previous belief". - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. 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.