Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Poltava (1894)


 * 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. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian battleship Poltava (1894)

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and 

Poltava was one of five Russian battleships captured and put into service by the Imperial Japanese Navy after the Russo-Japanese War. She was sunk by land-based artillery during the Siege of Port Arthur in shallow water that allow the Japanese to refloat and repair her. Her only combat during World War I was during the siege of the German-owned port of Tsingtao. The Russians bought her back in 1916 and she had little to do in the White Sea in 1917–18. Her crew declared for the Bolsheviks in October, but they must have been pretty apathetic as the ship made no resistance when the British intervened in the early stages of the Russian Civil War in 1918. No longer seaworthy, they used her as a prison hulk before abandoning her in 1919 when they left North Russia. The Bolsheviks recaptured her in 1920, but just scrapped her in 1924. Buggie111 did the original work several years ago and I've expanded it with material from new sources. I trust the reviewers will point out any infelicities of text and errors of omission, etc. in preparation for a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Signing on to this ACR. I'll put a few sources here for refs for myself. Buggie111 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources removed. Done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Comments 
 * Magazine linked twice.
 * Is this written in BrEng or AmEng? I see "armor" but also "defences" (and later, "defenses").
 * Is it necessary to specify that the radio was permanent? Shouldn't it be assumed in the absence of an indication that it was temporary?
 * Other Russian ship had had temporary installations added for tests. But it not a big deal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The first few sentences of the Port Arthur section are out of order - it makes much more sense to give the background first, which explains why there were tensions that made the fleet anchor in the roadstead.
 * Specify what type of cruiser Boyarin was.
 * "She was hit on 18 August by four 4.7-inch (120 mm) shells fired by a battery with a narrow view of the harbor that wounded six men." - the shells wounded six men, not the narrow view of the harbor.
 * "In October the advancing Third Army began to bombard the harbor with 28-centimeter (11 in) siege howitzers, firing at random, and hit Poltava twice on 7 October that only started fires." - this sentence is a little convoluted too - it'd be better to split it as "In October the advancing Third Army began to bombard the harbor with 28-centimeter (11 in) siege howitzers, firing at random. They hit Poltava twice on 7 October, though the shells only started fires." or similar.
 * "...shortly after the war began." - which war?
 * Make sure Tango is always italicized (apart from the province name, of course).
 * Is there a reason the nav template links to this article three times, twice via redirects?Parsecboy (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Check spellings again, I spy a "harbour" as well. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably missed something, but harbour is fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that Buggie's caught everything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good to go. Parsecboy (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 *  Comments Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * where were the torpedo tubes mounted? Russian and Japanese fit-outs.
 * Vladivastok spelling error
 * dab link to Breech
 * images should have alt text, not an ACR requirement though.
 * otherwise great job.
 * There is no article for breech specifically, so the DAB defines it. My source doesn't provide the exact location of the Japanese torpedo tubes, but I'd bet that they were also on the broadside.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments Support by MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "1904–1905" I think this should be "1904–05" according to MOS:DATE
 * The ISBN 9780253352149 would profit from dashing
 * How can "(subscription required)" be resolved?
 * What do you mean resolved? It's a perfectly valid source that people will have to buy if they want access. Other issues fixed. Thanks for reviewing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was meant purely for my education. I have not seen this before in a reference. Please excuse my ignorance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2014 (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.