Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Oslyabya


 * 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) 04:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Russian battleship Oslyabya

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) & Buggie111 (talk)

Oslyabya had a very brief career before she became the first ship sunk during the Battle of Tsushima in 1905. She took about eight years to build and had only about two years of service before she was sunk. The ship was one of three Russian second-class battleships built to support their strategy of commerce raiding if war had broken out against the British. While not intended to stand in the line of battle, the Russians had no choice to use them that way once the Russo-Japanese War began. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous phrasings and any jargon that needs to be explained.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * I might mention in the lead that she was a second class battleship intended to support commerce raiders, and had a weaker main battery and thinner armor, since this is probably a significant factor in the ship's fate.
 * Added the fact that she was a second-class BB to the lede, but the rest is, I think, better dealt with in the background section.
 * You might give a bit of context on the 2nd Pacific Squadron (you know, that the 1st Squadron had been wiped out during the actions in and around Port Arthur).
 * No dupe links. More to follow later.
 * Did the ship participate in the Dogger Bank incident?
 * No, that was Rozhestvensky's own first division.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I might give a bit more context on Tsushima
 * Add a bit, see it you think that it's enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me.
 * Check ENGVAR - looks to be US English but I see a "draught"
 * Standardize whether you include states/countries in refs. Parsecboy (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Only if they're not prominent cities like London, New York, Boston, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Anything actioned here? Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments As always with your nominations, this article is in good shape. I have the following comments: Support My comments are now addressed - nice work Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest adding in a bit of context about the Russian Fleet's deployment from the Baltic to the Far East, noting why this occurred and the scale of the movement.
 * Done some, but I'll probably have to dig out Pleshakov to fully respond to this and several of your other comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Likewise, some background on the immediate lead-up to the Battle of Tsushima would be helpful.
 * See if the new material suffices.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, can anything be said about the condition of the ship at this time? Much of the fleet was in a bad way.
 * Good point. There's nothing specific available on the ship herself, but I've added some information on her likely degree of overload that meant that her waterline armor was submerged and that her thinner upper armor was all that was available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "With the Russian fleet in two columns and not one, Oslyabya was forced to almost stop in its tracks, aggravating the situation" - this is a bit unclear: why was the ship forced to stop? Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * Pls let me know if I misunderstood anything in my copyedit; other points:
 * "The British ships were intended to defeat commerce-raiding armored cruisers like the Russian ships Rossia and Rurik and the Peresvet class were designed to support their armored cruisers." -- I'm assuming that "their" means "Russian" but pls confirm; in any case the sentence seems a bit convoluted and could stand recasting or splitting.
 * Since the Russian armored cruisers are the only ones mentioned, what others could "their" possibly mean? This sentence doesn't seem problematic to me, but I'm happy to take suggestions if it's still bothersome upon a re-read.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I know it seems obvious to you but I think it could be clearer. Maybe just some punctuation and clarification, e.g. "The British ships were intended to defeat commerce-raiding armored cruisers like the Russian ships Rossia and Rurik; the Peresvet class was designed to support such Russian cruisers." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting case in how people interpret things in their own way. I used the exact same language in the three other FAs for the ships of this class and nobody had a problem with it once I tweaked it to make it read better in the first FA. I'm not denying that it can't be further improved, but I find it kinda funny that this is one of the things that you feel still needs to be improved since I've reworked it several times already. I've tweaked it some, see how it works for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Works for me now, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nebogatov had no idea that he was now the squadron's de facto second-in-command ... During the Battle of Tsushima on 28 May, Oslyabya led the Second Division of the squadron" -- can you pls clarify in the text just which squadrons these are?
 * Does the second para of the Russo-Japanese War section not suffice?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it gets a bit confusing when three squadrons are mentioned in that para, i.e. the 1st, Second, and 3rd Pacific. At the very least I'd re-establish the name of the squadron in question when it's first mentioned in the new subsection for the Battle of Tsushima. BTW, did the Russians not name their squadrons consistently, i.e. "Second" instead of "2nd"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think that I see the problem now, you're confusing the squadrons with the tactical divisions that Rozhestvensky organized his combined forces into before the battle. I've linked division to hopefully clarify that a little. Not otherwise sure how to clarify things since the names are really less important than the command relationships between the admirals.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think it helps to treat (sub)sections as something a reader might go to without reading all the preliminary info and therefore should contain sufficient info to more-or-less stand alone. As far as repeating the squadron name, I'll take your word it's not vital, however I think we should change the new opening sentence for the Battle of Tsushima section, i.e. "The Russians were spotted the following morning" -- the last date I saw (for Von Fölkersam's death) was two paragraphs above so suggest we spell out the date the Russians were spotted.
 * Clarified this (I hope) and followed your suggestion about the date in the first para of the battle section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also in the the last paragraph of the Russo-Japanese War section, "Presumably, Oslyabya was just as overloaded..." -- is the "presumably" the way McLauglin couches it or is that your interpretation? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * McLaughlin doesn't mention Oslyabya when discussing the overweight status of the Russian battleships, probably because her waterline armor belt was submerged when she was fully loaded with coal, much less overloaded as they presumably all were. This should probably be tweaked a little bit, but I already discusses her overweight problem earlier and I'm at a bit of a loss how to remind the reader of that without simply repeating it. Any thoughts or suggestions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, not easy. I think if it were me I'd probably still reiterate her overweight problem by saying something like "Oslyabya had been overweight when built, which meant that the main armor belt was fully submerged..." and cite that per the Design section (McLauglin 107-08, 113-14). I certainly think that would be safer for FAC, which I assume is the next destination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That does sound like a sensible approach; see if the revised wording works for you. So how did you figure out that FAC was next up? ;)- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a gift, I guess... ;-) Okay, that tweak works for me, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Flooding of her starboard forward magazine was ordered" -- do we know who ordered this so we could change passive to active tense?
 * I doubt it as I don't think that many bridge personnel survived. But I will check.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No dab/duplinks.
 * Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
 * Sources look reliable to me and no formatting issues leapt out, but could you add an OCLC for Busch in the absence of ISBN?
 * Dunno where that came from, but deleted it since it was only a supporting cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the image licensing in this case, perhaps Nikki could look over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Oslyabya1903Bizerte.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Oslyabya14.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that I've sourced these satisfactorily.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the image review has been addressed satisfactorily. I would think the images were covered by Russian law, not EU law, and there is no information in the licensing about original date of publication or where published. I suggest needs to respond to the nominator on the issues raised before the image review can be signed off on for promotion. Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 23:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's impossible at this date to know the identity of the photographers so Russian or other nationality is impossible to tell. Since both photos were taken in French North Africa, French nationality is more likely and EU law would apply. I have no information about date of publication on either, but a print of File:Oslyabya14.jpg is linked which shows that it was published commercially with an inscription in French. Given the location I presume that they were taken by the same person, but who really knows?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So that's a bit of a problem with regards to copyright status - assuming EU law applies, we would need a publication date of at least 70 years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at the photo of the print at, I'd have to say that publication was no later than the 1920s and likely earlier. You just don't see that ornate style in the era of Moderne and Art Deco.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sturm, I suggest if you are making that claim about it being 1920s or earlier based on the matte in the photo of the print, then that should be included in the description of the file. If this is going to FAC, it will be important to have it in place when it is looked at there. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. I've linked the photo of the print in the other versions parameter on :File:Oslyabya14.jpg. Do you think that I need to do it with :File:Oslyabya1903Bizerte.jpg as well?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean add your supposition about the age of the print to the file description of File:Oslyabya14.jpg. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * No issues with external links (no action req'd).
 * No duplicate links (no action req'd).
 * Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR req).
 * Image completed above (ongoing).
 * Captions look fine (no action req'd).
 * Slightly repetitive language in the lead: "Sources differ on the exact number of lost, but over half her crew was lost with the ship." Specifically "lost" twice in the same sentence, perhaps change one instance to improve the prose? (suggestion only)
 * Prose here could be improved: "The British ships were intended to defeat commerce-raiding ships like the Russian armored cruisers Rossia and Rurik...", perhaps consider something like: "The British ships were intended to defeat commerce-raiders like the Russian armored cruisers Rossia and Rurik" (use of ships could be avoided) (suggestion only)
 * Is the definite article ("the") really req'd here? "The Russian strategy since 1897 was that ships from the Baltic Fleet...". It seems a little jarring. Perhaps just "Russian strategy since 1897 was that ships from the Baltic Fleet..."
 * "Rozhestvensky's reunited squadron sailed for Camranh Bay, French Indochina, on 16 March and reached it on almost a month...", perhaps more simply consider "Rozhestvensky's reunited squadron sailed for Camranh Bay, French Indochina, on 16 March and reached it almost a month..."
 * After reading through it I'd say it looks good other than a few potential prose tweaks listed above. Anotherclown (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any response I've implemented these (relatively minor) changes, pls just revert any you disagree with. Adding my support now at any rate as the article looks like it meets the A-class criteria to me. Anotherclown (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my slow response, but thanks for making these changes for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2015 (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.