Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)/archive1


 * 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.


 * Closed as No Consensus TomStar81 (Talk) 06:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)

 * Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk)

As part of my encore Four Award, I am nominating thise article for A-class review. As not so many comments were made in it's peer review, just like with my other article, SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand, I am left with the assumption that it is fit for the A class rating, and thus I have come here. I think this article has the potential to make it to FA in due course. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * one disambig link reported by the tools:
 * Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * no issues with ext links (no action required);
 * I believe that the images are appropriately licenced (no action required);
 * you might consider adding Alt text (suggestion only);
 * Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * McLaughlin is listed in the Citations, but doesn't appear in the References;
 * Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the References, some of the ISBNs have hyphens and some don't. These should probably be consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * the ISBNs are still inconsistent, I believe. For instance compare Forczyk to Jung. Can you please take another look at this?
 * there is inconsistency in the way the publisher locations are presented. For instance: "London, England" but also "London". These should be consistent, and I think they should be "London, United Kingdom". Also, "Annapolis, MD", should probably be "Annapolis, Maryland";
 * I've made a couple of tweaks for British English v US English spelling, but I may have missed something. As such, can you please check for anything I may have missed when you go through the article to address Dank's concerns below? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Service history section, I think there is an issue with this sentence: "She and her sister ships were transferred to Port Arthur in 1900 with most of the First Pacific Squadron, which was the current port of the First Squadron of the Russian Pacific Fleet". (The word "current" doesn't seem to be correct given that you are referring to an event 110 years ago, maybe say "then current"? Additionally, I believe that the "which was" clause is placed incorrectly in the sentence. I think it should follow directly after "Port Arthur");
 * in the Service history section, repetition: "outfitted" and "fitted" (perhaps try to reword?);
 * in the Service history section (Wartime service subsection): "Japanese Fleet". Is this correctly capitalised? Was the proper name of the Japanese naval forces assembled in the area "Japanese Fleet"? If not, it should probably be "Japanese fleet";
 * same as above for "Japanese Army", I think this should be "Japanese army" in this case because it is not a proper noun (i.e "Imperial Japanese Army" was the proper noun at that time. Also consider was Baron Nogi Maresuke the commander of the whole army, including units in Japan, or just those forces deployed around Port Arthur? By saying "Japanese Army" led by Baron Nogi..." it is implying that he was the commander of the entire Japanese army, rather than just those forces deployed);
 * in the Wartime service subsection, this sentence seems awkward or out of place: "However, the Sevastopol was not fully repaired, one gun in her aft turret remaining inoperable." (I'd suggest maybe adding a clarifying clause (something along the lines of "even though Sevastopol was not fully repaired, she still sailed with the rest of the fleet...");
 * "Admiral Vitgeft" - sounds too much like a formal military report. On first mention "Admiral Wilgelm Vitgeft", and then subsequent mentions just "Vitgeft";
 * "ship's hulls" - is it a single ship, or multiple ships being referred to here? If single, it should be "ship's hull" If plural, then it should be "ships' hulls";
 * "...which resulted in one man dead..." perhaps "one man being killed...";
 * "On the other side..." On the other side of what? The habour? Or are you using "other side" to refer to "the Japanese"?
 * "On the other side, Mikasa was hit by two 12-inch shells and one 6-inch shell from Retvizan and Sevastopol, which caused 40 casualties, late in the battle." (This might sound better if "late in the battle" was placed elsewhere in the sentence;
 * inconsistent spelling: "Vitgeft" and "Vitegft";
 * "squadron via semaphore. But the signals were only slowly..." (Starting the next sentence with "But" seems a bit awkward to me, perhaps you might consider rewording?
 * "...a rendezvous with the Second Pacific Squadron..." (rendezvous where? You might need to explain with a clause why this would have improved the situation);
 * "...were launched, four hit. All of these four were launched..." (there is some redundancy here with repeated words, perhaps reword?);
 * "...squadron led by Lieutenant Miyamoto..." (who is Miyamoto, do you know his first name and why is it notable that he led the squadron? Did he rise to higher command? If so, it might need to be explained with a clause, e.g. "by Lieutenant Miyamoto, who would later become...??";
 * "...One of the torpedoes hit one of the ship's propellers, and three in the surrounding torpedo nets..." maybe reword to "Three of the torpedos hit the torpedo nets that had been placed around the ship, while the other hit one of the ship's propellers");
 * "...Sevastopol was still afloat, but severely damaged..." (I think this would sound better: "Although severely damaged, Sevastopol remained afloat and managed to sink two destroyers and damage six others...";
 * "...so as the ship would not be salvageable by the Japanese..." maybe reword to "so that the ship could not be salvaged by the Japanese";
 * "...A dispatch from Tokyo reported that it sank as a result of a Japanese torpedo attack". (As this stands in opposition to the talk about scuttling, perhaps a modifying clause is required here, e.g. "Nevertheless, a dispatch from Tokyo...";
 * in the References section, is there a publication year for the Preston source? AustralianRupert (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hi, Buggie, are you able to address these concerns? There is still quite a bit of time left in the review, so if these could be addressed, it might still pass (particularly if you pay particular attention to the checklist that Dank mentioned). I've made a few tweaks, but I don't want to get too involved, otherwise I might not be able to be seen as objective. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't think that this article is ready for A-class just yet. As my concerns have not been addressed within the 28 day review period, I must oppose its promotion at this time. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: Support
 * Performed a few minor edits for links and grammar.
 * "other ships in the First Pacific Squadron that managed to survive the Yellow Sea sortie, at that time about 5.7 kilometers (3.5 mi) away from the hill.[29]" - what was 5.7 meters away from the hill, the squadron or the sortie? Clarify please.
 * "a Japanese cruiser attempting to attack the Sevastopol was sunk by a mine in the harbor), as well as killing 35 men and 5 officers.[30][6]" - this should be clarified somehow because the current wording makes it sound like officers aren't men.
 * "Captain Nikolai Essen" is referred to by his full name on second reference a few times. After he is first mentioned he should only be "Essen" (per MOS)
 * In addition to the hyphens mentioned above, all of the ISBNs need to the the 13-digit forms. Taras and Balakin are missing ISBNs entirely, and Preston and Watts only have the 10-digit ISBNs.
 * Hi, Ed. I believe that the Taras and Balakin issue was discussed in the peer review. Apparently they are not available. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Strike that then. — Ed! (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than that it looks good. I'll support after these comments are addressed. — Ed! (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I'm currently on vacation now, so I'll have to do these later. Merry Christmas! Buggie111 (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All done! Buggie111 (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments I made the following changes; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose. I need to move on to other A-class reviews, some of which are getting ready to close. I don't believe anyone has read this to check for obvious mistakes, such as obvious misspellings and sentences like "The ship was had a crew ..." and "done propeller shaft, powered by fourteen cylindrical coal-burning boilers." "Sevastopol, named after the siege at Sevastopol": your source says it was named after the city, not the siege. "the decade older Ekaterina II class battleships": that doesn't work, put "a decade older" after the noun. I'll give it a second chance if you'll read it carefully, going down the checklist. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The text is around 10k, and one paragraph is sufficient for that per WP:LEAD, but a lead of just one paragraph may attract scrutiny at FAC. You say you're headed there; if it were me, I'd write another paragraph for the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 05:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "into First Pacific Squadron": into the First Pacific Squadron - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment, this isn't looking good, I'm having to make substantial changes to every paragraph.
 * I rewrote the design section so that the reader doesn't have to wait till the second paragraph to find out that nothing in the first paragraph actually happened, and corrected numerous mistakes.
 * "The ship was had a crew": The ship had a crew
 * "done propeller shaft, powered by fourteen": Part of this sentence was missing. I went with "She was powered by 14 ...", but see if you can restore whatever you omitted. - Dank (push to talk) 04:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'm a bit surprised this didn't come up in the PR, so I'll let this run for a couple more days so as other comments don't get saved for later. I'll rewrite this later and will send it up again. Buggie111 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I'll try to make some time to participate in peer reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 6 January 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.