Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)


 * 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 EyeSerene talk 07:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)

 * Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk)

After reviewing the mistakes listed by the former A-class review, I have decided to put this article up again. Although Sevastopol was an obscure ship, I have found as much info as possible on her. This has more than usual personal meaning for me as this was the first article I created de-facto, although it only was moved to mainspace in early October. Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Comments:
 * no dabs, ext links work, alt text is present (no action required);
 * the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations (no action required);
 * the infobox says "Completed: 1897", but the prose says: "Sevastopol was finished in 1899" - seems inconsistent;
 * the infobox says "Commissioned: 1899", but the prose implies commissioning took place in 1900 - seems inconsistent;
 * in the Wartime service section: "On 26 March 1904, Sevastopol was rammed by Peresvet, damaging a propeller" - was this an accident? If so it probably should be stated;
 * in the Wartime service section: "On 9 August, with the Third Army assaulting the..." Is this the Japanese Third Army? If so, it probably should be stated for clarity;
 * "Peresvet" and "Peresvyet" - is this the same ship? If so, the spelling is inconsistent, also the wikilink should be moved to first mention;
 * "Sevastopol had had one 6-inch" - probably don't need the second "had";
 * this sounds a little awkward: "A breakout attempt was made on 23 August that consisted of Sevastopol bombarding". It might sound better as: "On 23 August, a break out attempt was made. As a part of this, Sevastopol bombarded a Japanese battery in an effort to escape along with nine smaller ships, but after she neutralized the battery, a Japanese lookout spotted...";
 * "By 9 December four battleships and two cruisers had been sunk by the army". Would probably sound better as: "By 9 December four battleships and two cruisers had been sunk by the Japanese";
 * "Captain Essen decided to scuttle" - probably no need to restate rank here;
 * after the ship was scuttled, do we know what happened to the crew? Were they rescued by the Japanese and taken as prisoners, or did they drown? Was Essen's award posthumous? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I have everything done. Buggie111 (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a couple more tweaks, but all my comments have been dealt with so I've added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Comments 
 * You might expand the lead a bit. While it reads well enough, and two paragraphs is fine, what's there could stand a little more flesh to more fully summarise the article's contents.
 * You mention the ship's class in the lead, but not directly in the main body. This also means you haven't actualy cited the class it belonged to. You could perhaps rework the Design section's first sentence to read "The first design for Sevastopol and her sister ships of the Petropavlovsk-class pre-dreadnoughts was approved in January 1891", or some such. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed, check the lead for length. Buggie111 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. changes look okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Finished reviewing the whole article now. Having copyedited a bit, it looks good to me in general. Just a couple of further points:
 * The ship was redesigned, however, so that it did not resemble Imperator Nikolai I at all. The armor plating was redesigned... -- Be nice to avoid "redesigned" in successive sentences. How was the armour plating redesigned? That might give us a different word to use in the second sentence...
 * For some references you have OCLC as well as ISBNs. I think the convention now is to use ISBN if applicable, and OCLC if not, rather than both, but I won't make a fuss about that. On the other hand some of the entries have neither, and they should have at least one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll get to work on both of these. Some of the entries are Russian magazines, and thus have no ISBN, and no locatable OCLC. Buggie111 (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. I seem to recall that the issue of ISBNs/OCLCs for the Russian sources came up in the peer and previous A class review and I don't think that anyone was able to locate them (I've looked myself, too). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand that and if you've looked but the data isn't available, that's fine. Happy with your mods in response to comments, so well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments - mostly quite good, only a few points: Support
 * In the references: Spector is lacking a place of publishing, while Taras is also missing this and a year. Is this information available?
 * The citation check tool reveals two errors: "Forczyk, p. 54" = "Multiple references contain the same content" and "forczyk54" = "Multiple references are using the same name".
 * Some issues with figures per WP:MOSNUM, see "as well as killing 35 sailors and 5 officers": this should be "five officers". Anotherclown (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done Buggie111 (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello again Buggie. All done except for Taras which is still missing a year of publishing. Can you please add it? Anotherclown (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there just is none. There is a forward dated 31 December, 1999, but I don't know how much insight that would give me into the year of publication. Buggie111 (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries then. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 11:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 20 April 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.