Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

Dvenadsat Apostolov was one of the earliest Russian predreadnoughts built for the Black Sea Fleet. Completed in the early 1890s, her most notable action was participating in the unsuccessful attempt to recapture the mutinous battleship Potemkin in 1905. The ship was disarmed six years later and became a submarine depot ship in 1912. Immobile, she was controlled by whichever side captured Sevastopol after the Russian Revolution. Dvenadsat Apostolov stood in for Potemkin during the filming of The Battleship Potemkin in 1925 before she was scrapped. I'd like reviewers to look for any remaining BritEng and for any infelicitous prose or unexeplained jargon in preparation for a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Parsecboy

 * I spy "armour" in the infobox and a "harbour" in the prose
 * The initial battery of all medium-caliber guns is interesting, as this was before the "hail of fire" school of thought came into vogue in France and Germany, IIRC - is there anything more that could be said about this?
 * No, it appears that there was no real rhyme or reason for deciding the armament of Russian ships of this era. Calibers proposed for the main armament ranged from 9 to 12 inches.
 * Fair enough
 * Move the link to Hull (watercraft) to the first use of the term
 * On a related note, you have two sentences in a row that start with "Her hull was..."
 * "She was assessed" - by whom?
 * "the ship's s were raised" - something's wrong with that link
 * " guns is unknown" -> are
 * "The bulk of the armor used in Dvenadsat Apostolov was compound armor" - this seems a little repetitive to me
 * "to rearm her as with smaller guns" - this doesn't read right to me

Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Images:
 * File:DiagramDvenadsat.jpg - this needs a tag for UK copyright status too
 * File:Dvenadtsat'Apostolov1905Sevastopol.jpg - this needs a publication date
 * Nominated for deletion.
 * Thanks for the review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
My Lord not the first reviewer here. ;)
 * at the cost of 75 long tons (76 t) in September I don't reckon we need to link long tons.
 * Don't be so sure. How many people know the difference between short and long tons?
 * Me, you and BB I can tell for sure. Anyway it's just odd to look at, in other articles like L 20e α-class battleship, French battleship Jauréguiberry and French battleship Jean Bart (1911). Also I reckon long and short tons and tonnes are like kilometres most people knows some informations about one of them. Like Britons use short tons and Americans use long ones, the rest of the world uses tonnes so by MOS:UNITSYMBOLS it shouldn't be linked. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not see what that has to do with linking long tons or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * pairs of 12-inch (305 mm) Obukhov Model 1877 30-caliber guns By MOS:NUMNOTES "Adjacent quantities not comparable should usually be in different formats".
 * The four 6-inch (152 mm) Model 1877 35-caliber guns Same as above.
 * at a muzzle velocity of 1,870 ft/s (570 m/s) to a range Link both ft/s and m/s?
 * Sure, why not?
 * thinned to 12 inches abreast the magazines No metric units?
 * Converted on first use.
 * armor was 10–12 inches (254–305 mm) thick Remove 305 because if you convert the sentence above then this 305 shouldn't be there.
 * Converted for the 10 inches, but it would look funny if I only converted one.
 * supplied by Charles Cammell of Sheffield, England I don't reckon England ought be linked.
 * invented by Lieutenant A. P. Ygrumov and also to evaluate Is there a link for A. P. Ygrumov?
 * Nope.
 * prevented an attempt by Captain Kolands to blow up Kolands who?
 * No first name given.
 * The Naval Technical Committee proposed to reboiler Link for Naval Technical Committee?
 * Nope.
 * rearm her with four ten-inch guns in two turrets No metric units?
 * Already converted
 * The four 6-inch (152 mm) Model 1877 35-caliber guns Remove the "(152 mm)" there is already one previously.
 * Don't think so.
 * she was used on various harbour duties British harbour.
 * when they evacuated the Crimea in 1920 Link Crimea.
 * Linked in the lede
 * Note All dates used in this article are New Style I reckon it could be handy if you add the amount of days differences of both calendars (which was 12 days before 1900 and 13 since 1900).
 * You're losing a step! Gotta up your game if you wanna be first! ;-) See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are there any issues that have not yet been resolved to your satisfaction? If it's the link to long tons, I'm not understanding your reasoning.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me see. I think in the US they call long tons and in the UK they call it short tons. However do they just call it long tons/short tons or just tons? Because if they use short/long tons then I believe we shouldn't link long tons why because it's a common term if not then why do we always unlink tonnes? If they only say "tons" then I believe we should link it because both Americans and Britons could be confused 'cause probably they don't know what long/short tons for stand. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The article on long tons says that it's almost entirely unused in the US while the Brits have used tonnes instead of long tons since metrification. Short tons in the US are commonly called tons, so I believe that there is a strong probability that confusion could arise. I've only come to this realization recently and am inconsistent in remembering to link long tons.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, in that case never mind then. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
This article is in great shape. I have a few comments: That is all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * link ship commissioning for Decommissioned in the lead
 * suggest "at the cost of"→"in exchange for an additional of 75 long tons (76 t) in displacement", and move "in September" to after "Committee", as it currently reads like the additional displacement happened in September
 * comma after "bow-heavy"
 * "revised the armament and to four"
 * was the 100 long tons in addition to the aforementioned 75 long tons? If so, suggest "All together these changes to the armament added..."
 * No, that's the net change; there were some significant reductions in weight that I didn't mention.
 * suggest adding oa to the infobox length
 * suggest turning lk=on for kW
 * the 47 mm gun numbers don't match between the body and infobox
 * the 37 mm gun numbers in the infobox don't match the body and could do with expanding to reflect the number of 5-barrel ones as well as the number of single mounts. By my count that's four quintuple 37 mm cannon and 10 single mounts?
 * Yep.
 * eight inchs needs an extra e
 * suggest linking torpedo
 * perhaps say that Chesma was a battleship?
 * link Navy List
 * Thanks for your through review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I tweaked the additional weight sentence for clarity. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Source review - pass

 * I assume that Campbell is an article or chapter in Warship? If so, could the details be tweaked to reflect this?
 * Good catch. Done
 * Is there a reason for the mix of 10 and 13 digit ISBNs?
 * 'Cause there's no requirement for uniformity in ISBN length, despite how some would have it. I use the ISBN that the book was published with.
 * I used to do the same, but so many reviewers complained that I took the line of least resistance.

The sources used all seem to be of high quality. I have not carried out spot checks. I consider the sources to be current. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.