Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Slava


 * 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. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Russian battleship Slava

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I believe that it meets all the criteria.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments: Generally seems fine to me, although I don't have the expertise to discuss the content really (it seems complete to me, though). A couple of comments for the review:
 * there was one dab link to "Capstan", but I've fixed it;
 * ext links all work according to the tool;
 * the images don't have alt text and while it is no longer a requirement, I'd like to suggest adding it (but it won't affect my support);
 * I made a few tweaks myself, please revert if you don't agree with any of them;
 * the images all seem appropriately licenced, although the Russian copyright law is very confusing to me, so I might wrong;
 * in the Footnotes "McLaughlin, p. 299" (Citations # 11 and 14) could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS as you've done this already for McLaughlin p. 146;
 * Good catch, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Battle of Moon Sound section, I think that the times could be clarified by adding "am" to them per MOS. AustralianRupert (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally very well written and easy to follow for a technical subject. A few comments:
 * I rewrote "anti-torpedo boat guns" as "guns used against torpedo boats", and I want to explain why this isn't just a rehash of the "Queen Elizabeth-class ships" discussion on hyphen usage. I don't see how a reader can be confused by the latter, but a general reader who doesn't already know what you're talking about might read "anti-torpedo boat guns" to mean "boat guns used against torpedos".  A common solution 20 years ago would have been to add a hyphen ("anti-torpedo-boat guns"), but this now looks wrong to enough readers that I prefer to just write out what we mean. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with this, although I'd use my original phrasing if I was addressing a more knowledgeable audience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer "listing" to "heeling". Every technical field uses lots of metaphors, but the metaphors should be avoided if the general reader might get the wrong idea, and I think there's a chance that people will read the original (and usual, per Google) meaning of "listing because of wind pressure" here, rather than "listing when making a sharp turn".  (If heeling really has completely lost the original meaning, then there's no problem here, but the first 50 hits in a Google search suggested otherwise.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Heeling is not a metaphor; it's what ships do when they turn, just like body roll in a car when it turns. Whereas ships list when they take on water, either through damage or voluntarily as Slava did to increase the elevation of her guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My approach is to use dictionaries, and if they don't say anything definitive (Merriam-Wester doesn't even list the word in this sense), then I try skimming 50 or 100 Google searches. That's hard at the moment because I'm on a slower connection; I'll give it another look when I get home. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, Webster's New World is fine with this. - Dank (push to talk) 05:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I generally avoid issues of unit conversions, but do you want 5 significant digits here? "23,000 yards (21,031 m)" - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it's an approximate range, it's kinda pointless. Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objection to Kronstadt rather than Kronshtadt, following the spelling used in the article on that city? - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * None.
 * Any objection to "shell splinter damage" in place of "splinter damage")? - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, although damaged by shell splinters would probably be a better phrasing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm undecided about the use of the German "sharp S" (ß). Several ships editors like to use it, and even use it in article titles.  AP Stylebook rejects all but a few non-English characters, so you'll rarely see it in American newspapers.  Per languages of the United States, "According to the 2000 US census, people of German ancestry make up the largest single ethnic group in the United States", and "German was widely spoken until the United States entered World War I" (including in my own state, North Carolina, btw), so it doesn't seem "neutral" to me to omit a common character in the German alphabet but allow almost all the French and Spanish diacriticals.  Still, most English-language sources do omit the "sharp S".  I'll leave it up to you guys. - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Feel free to revert any of my edits, but please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 00:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - one minor quibble though: I generally prefer at least 2 paragraphs in the intro, if possible. Parsecboy (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I split it, although the first paragraph is pretty short.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could add some very basic technical stuff, like length, number of main guns, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support Would prefer to see alt text, but I will not hold this against the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.