Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Petropavlovsk-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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Petropavlovsk-class battleship

 * Nominator(s): 

These three Russian predreadnoughts served during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. All three were lightly damaged during the Battle of Port Arthur and one was the first major Russian warship lost to a mine several months later. The other two fought in the Battle of the Yellow Sea and endured the Japanese bombardment of Port Arthur that sank one of the sisters in shallow water and caused the other one to be scuttled. The Japanese salvaged the one ship that they could access and incorporated it into their navy as a training ship. The survivor was sold back to the Russians during World War I, captured and then disabled by the British during the Russian Civil War and finally sold for scrap by the victorious Soviets. I've just overhauled this article in light of the comments made during the ACRs and FACs of the individual ships of the class and believe that it meets the A-class criteria. As usual I'm looking for stray bits of BritEng, infelicitous prose and unexplained or linked jargon in preparation for FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, nice work as usual, Sturm. I have the following observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "File:Russian battleship Poltava destroyed at Port Arthur.jpg": is lacking many details on the image description page, which are probably necessary to confirm it's PD status
 * Can't find any source on a Google image search, but the stamp and the cancellation confirm that it's a Japanese postcard. And the liberal Japanese copyright for old photos means that it's PD there.
 * Ok, no worries. My only suggestion then would be to add something like this to the image description page: "Source: Japanese postcard post dated c. X" (X being the rough year), or something similar. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * same as above for "File:Russian battleship Poltava.jpg"
 * Replaced.
 * "File:Poltava correct Brasseys1902.png": I wonder if PD-1923 would be a better license?
 * Concur.
 * "Draught" in the infobox --> "Draft"
 * regarding the ship's complement, in the infobox "662"", should this be "652" (27 + 625 = 652)?
 * inconsistent: "10,600 ihp (7,904 kW)" (infobox) v. "10,600 indicated horsepower (7,900 kW)" (body of the article)
 * inconsistent: "Twenty smaller QF 37-millimeter" (body) v "28 × single 37 mm" (infobox)
 * Good catches. Thanks for looking this over so quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments  Not much to complain about - nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like the article started with BrEng spellings, so the article should be converted back per RETAIN.
 * Sigh; hopefully I caught all of them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Link flagship on the first occurrence
 * Linked in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant that you have it linked down in the Careers section but not earlier in the body. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, good catch, delinked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You might merge the duplicative cells in the ships table (like I did here)
 * Thanks for reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments The article provides a good summary of the battleships' design and their careers, but I think that there's some scope to put them in context (especially with an eye to a FAC): Support My comments are now addressed nice work. I'd suggest looking for a bit more information on the ships' role in the Russian Navy during the war ahead of a FAC though. Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can a description of why Russia ordered these battleships be provided? (were they specifically intended to reinforce the Far East for example?)
 * Damn good question; I'd forgotten that there was a whole chapter at the beginning of the book on the building program of 1882. So I've added a whole paragraph with more background. See how it reads and feel free to edit as necessary.
 * Do we know why Sevastopol had a slightly smaller armament?
 * Not stated, but it might have been a pretty trivial attempt to lighten her; she was the most overweight of the sisters.
 * What was the role of these ships at the start of the war - eg, were they the centrepiece of the fleet, or only part of its battleline? Did this change during the war?
 * Not really discussed, but as the slowest battleships, they were last in line during the Battle of the Yellow Sea.
 * Did the ships inflict any damage on the Japanese fleet during the Battle of Port Arthur and later engagements? - the article describes only the damage they suffered. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Added. Thanks for asking provoking questions that will make things easier at FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above 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.