Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)/archive3

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 01:20, 20 October 2011 [1].

---

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)/archive3

Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As we Russians like to say, Бог любит тройцы (God loves trinities, aka groups of three). Due to this belief, I'd like to present you Sevastopol, visiting FAC for the third time (the first was not promoted due to the lack of fulfilled comments, the second because of the lack of reviewers). Wherever this goes, whatever this does, I'll be right here answering your comments, if they come (I'll make a point of pinging the reviewers who reviewed her in her first two FACs, her two ACRs and her GAN. Thanks, for everything that you guys have done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02

41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Why isn't the title formatted as "Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)" using DISPLAYTITLE:Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)
• "was stationed at Port Arthur" In which country was Port Author located?
• remove hyphen from and wikify "Far-East".

• Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't expecting something from you! Anyway..... what's wrong with the title? The other two are done. Buggie111 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Sevastopol" be italicised, since it's a ship name? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

All article instances check out ok. THe article title can't be italicised. Buggie111 (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

How come? Just add {{DISPLAYTITLE:Russian battleship ''Sevastopol'' (1895)}} at the top of the page. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, never knew that. Thought you were talking bout moving. Done, and thanks. Buggie111 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support good-looking article. Follows all FA guidelines. Happy for it to have the star. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
• What is this site's editorial policy, and what are the qualifications of the author of that article? I don't speak Russian. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

K, the Society ref has been deleted, Taras covers the info. The flot page is the official cite of the Russian Fleet, and the page in question is a copy of a letter/diary. The ISBNs have been standardized. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed this article in its MILHIST A-class review. My comments there were addressed satisfactorily, and I have confidence the article maintains the same level of quality, which I found at the time to definitely be FA standard. —Ed!^(talk) 14:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: generally looks fine to me. I have just a couple of suggestions, which can choose to ignore if you see fit:
  • "Sevastopol began her sea trials...after the conclusion of her trials" (this a little repetitious - maybe consider rewording slightly);
  • "After the surprise attack on Port Arthur..." (probably don't need the word "surprise" here, as it has already been described as such earlier in the paragraph);
  • "The ships at that time were about 5.7 kilometers (3.5 mi) away from the hill" - the signficance of this might need to be explained a little. For example, maybe something like this, "The ships at that time were about 5.7 kilometers (3.5 mi) away from the hill, placing them within range of Japanese shore-based artillery".
  • "At that same time, the commanding..." (maybe change "that" to "the"). AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Adressed. Buggie111 (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Lead looks good. My only concern at the last FAC was that the lead did not give any information about the size of the ship. I am happy to see that that has been addressed. A brief read-through of the lead found no new issues. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I do not see any outstanding issues. Brad (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Nice to see all the early supports!
• "The Sevastopol", "Sevastopol": Pick one and go with it. Almost all our ship article omit the definite article (unless something comes before the ship name, as in "the battleship Sevastopol").
• "Named after the siege of Sevastopol": Named for, per Garner's
• "acquired by Russia from China": Not wrong, but I'd do without the "by Russia"; it seems implied.
• "first to have Harvey nickel-steel armor and Popov radios installed on her.": first to use Harvey nickel-steel armor and Popov radios.
• "She was 11,854 long tons (12,044 t), 369 feet (112.5 m) and mounted a main battery ...": Nonparallel; see WP:Checklist#series. "She was X and Y, and mounted ..." Also, every battleship's weight varied quite a bit depending on how much she was carrying, so here and in the Characteristics section, say something like "she displaced 11,854 long tons (12,044 t) at full load" (if that's the right figure). Also, there are many ways to measure a ship's length, so "369 feet (112.5 m) overall" is better, as you say in Characteristics. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any copyediting. Strange. Will get to work ASAP. Buggie111 (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• "during the surprise attack": during a surprise attack [since the attack hasn't been mentioned yet and isn't common knowledge]
• "one crewman dead and 62 others wounded.": one crewman dead and 62 wounded. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Armor consisted of a full waterline belt, and the upper hull featured a tumblehome.": I don't see the connection between the two parts of the sentence. Also, was the waterline belt her only armor? Maybe just: "She had a full waterline belt." - Dank (push to talk) 01:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

All done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. - Dank (push to talk) 01:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong, the tumblehome? Should I chop that into a second sentance? Buggie111 (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

My first two comments were about "The Sevastopol" and "Named after". - Dank (push to talk) 01:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• "one shell, either 6-inch (152 mm) or 8-inch (203 mm) in diameter": 6 inches, 8 inches
• "decided to retreat": retreated
• "The size of the Russian battleships meant that they could not fit into the dry dock at Port Arthur. Instead, large ...": The Russian battleships were too big to fit into the dry dock at Port Arthur, so large ...
• "On 23 August, a breakout attempt was made. As part of this, Sevastopol bombarded a Japanese battery in an effort to escape along with nine smaller ships": On 23 August, Sevastopol bombarded a Japanese battery in an effort to escape along with nine smaller ships
• "a Japanese lookout spotted the approaching ships and it was decided to return to port.": she returned to port after a Japanese lookout spotted the approaching ships.
• "fire upon the Sevastopol": fire on the Sevastopol [per Chicago, "upon" should be followed by an event]
• "... Japanese, but Sevastopol, although": "but" and "although" are too close here. Try: Japanese. Sevastopol, although
• - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

All done, now :) Buggie111 (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There was an image review on the first FAC; is everything still all right on that front? Ucucha (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, yes. Buggie111 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Does the article have any images that it didn't have before, and are all the links still working? - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Buggie111 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Support -- Already looks like third time lucky for this one, Buggie, but doesn't hurt to make sure... ;-) Reviewed all changes made since I last looked at this during its previous, inconclusive FAC and see nothing in prose, detail, structure, referencing, or supporting materials that should prevent it earning the bronze star -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review I think I reviewed this before, maybe. From a copyright standpoint this is all good. However looking at File:Port Arthur viewed from the 203 Meter Hill.jpg, if it was not, in fact, taken from 203 Meter Hill, the image really should be renamed, as it simplifies the image description page, which expends far too much space correcting itself. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like I did not, in fact, review it. However since I recognize all the images, I must have intended to. Either way, my comment above applies. Good luck. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I've placed a rename template on the Commons pic. Buggie111 (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a less redundant way to phrase this?

• She was manned by 632 crewmen.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Just passing by and tweaked this wording. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Count the number of times the word "she" is used in the lead; the prose could be more varied. There are plenty of ways of referring to the "boat" (vessel, ship, battleship, her name, recasting the sentence to avoid always having the ship as the subject, etc) to avoid the overuse of the same pronoun. For example:

After she was slightly damaged during a surprise attack on Port Arthur in early February, she participated in several attempts to break out from the besieged port. The most notable of these was the Battle of the Yellow Sea, where she was damaged by several shells but managed to make it back to port with the remnants of the Russian Fleet, ...

could be:

Slightly damaged during a surprise attack on Port Arthur in early February, Sevastopol participated in several attempts to break out from the besieged port. The most notable of these was the Battle of the Yellow Sea, where the battleship was damaged by several shells ...

Try to mix up the prose-- it's not necessary to see repetitive she, she, she. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this a typo? If not, what does it mean?

• Sevastopol was hit by one shell, either 6 inches (152 mm) or 6 inches (152 mm) in diameter, ...

The very next sentence provides an example of redundant "she":

• She soon turned in pursuit along with other ships of the Russian fleet, all firing their forward guns, but she failed to score any hits.
  • could be
    • She soon turned in pursuit along with other ships of the Russian fleet, all firing their forward guns, but failed to score any hits.

Malleus is good at this sort of copyediting-- you all might consider asking him to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I often save the step of checking language variation as a last step, and forgot to do it here. I've just made another pass through; here, here and here are the diffs. I see from your edit summary that there was a problem with a link; I don't generally check links, so it would be a good idea for someone to go through looking for Easter eggs (which is kind of an Easter egg itself!) On your last point, it would be too easy IMO to misread that to mean that other ships of the Russian fleet were all firing their forward guns, but failed to score any hits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no picture of the ship sinking? Surely there's a free image by now. I was able to find lots of them on Google-- surely something is usable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Oopsie, wrong FAC: I mistook this for HMS Eagle, where there are plenty of images. I'll repose the question there, but still wonder if more are availabe here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.