Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 April 2023 [1].

Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883) edit

Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC), Muwatallis II (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks, this article is about the Chilean cruiser Esmeralda, a warship that marked an important milestone in naval design—albeit a short-lived one. This was the world's first protected cruiser, a type that made Esmeralda's builder a lot of money. The soundness of Esmeralda's design has been debated both then and now, but given the rapidly improving naval technology of the time, it was in any case destined to be quickly surpassed by new warships. Little more than a decade after Esmeralda entered service, Chile sold it to Japan to help fund a newer and larger vessel. My thanks in advance to everyone who takes a look through this article! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Bombardeodeiquique.png needs a US tag
  • File:Tsushima_battle_map-en.svg would benefit from a legend, and what's the source of the data presented?
  • File:Japanese_cruiser_Izumi_at_Sasebo_1908.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello Nikkimaria! I've added a US-PD_expired tag and swapped the second image for a regular map. For alt text, I think only one image needs it + the captions serve well enough for the others. Please let me know if you disagree. For the third image, a publishing date is not required per Japanese copyright law, which for this time period needs a publishing or creation date to prove something is in the public domain. I have a longstanding unresolved talk page message related to how the publishing requirement was added to the template. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, does that resolve the issues? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the alts, where the caption is sufficient, an alt of "refer to caption" is preferred to a blank alt, unless the image is unlinked (See MOS:BLANKALT). The new map also needs more specific sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: To me, WP:SKYISBLUE would apply to the map... It has basic first- and second-level locations listed, and that's all. That said, I've replaced it with {{maplink}} and added that alt text to all applicable images. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Good to see you back at FAC.

  • "Constructed by the British shipbuilder Armstrong Mitchell in the early 1880s, the company's founder ...": needs rephrasing; the founder was not constructed by Armstrong Mitchell.
  • The lead says Esmerelda showed the flag and conducted gunboat diplomacy during the Panama crisis of 1885. The body has "the Chilean government sent the ship on an unusual and statement-making voyage to Panama, where it showed the Chilean flag alongside the great powers" with no more details about what Esmerelda (or the Chilean government) did there. Do we need both "show the flag" and "gunboat diplomacy" in the lead?
  • Suggest linking to "Navy_Directory#Background" instead of to wiktionary for "stricken"; the wiktionary sense is hard to spot on that page. You have another link near the end of the article; if you do want the duplicate link I would make the same change there. Are "struck" and "stricken" synonyms in this usage?
  • In the "Background" section I think it would be worth giving the date of the end of the War of the Pacific (presumably April 4, 1884, when the Treaty of Valparaiso was signed), and the date of Esmerelda's completion, making it clearer that she never participated in that war.
  • I initially read "developed it from the Japanese cruiser Tsukushi" as meaning that the ship that became Esmerelda was originally destined to become Tsukushi. The next sentence clarifies the situation, but how about "who based the design on that of the Japanese cruiser Tsukushi" or something similar?
  • "Nathaniel Barnaby, the Director of Naval Construction for the British Admiralty, (the department in charge of Britain's Royal Navy), would later write that ...": don't use both parentheses and parenthetical commas.
  • Per MOS:TYPOFIX you can correct "Chili" to "Chile", unless you feel it's significant in some way.
  • "This perspective was part of a larger effort to draw attention to the underfunded and under-equipped state of the United States Navy." Does this mean that the quote just before this should not be taken at face value?
  • We say it "lacked a proper conning tower", but later that "the conning tower was provided with its own 1-inch armor".
  • "While the British government upheld its neutrality through the active prevention of warship deliveries to the countries involved in the War of the Pacific, Esmeralda was finished after the conclusion of the conflict and arrived in Chile on 16 October 1884." Presumably the Chileans knew about the British policy. If they knew they would not be able to take delivery till the War of the Pacific was over, I think that should be clearer in the "Background" section where the war is discussed as an incentive for the order.
  • "She did not find them, although Abtao would later join the rebels." Suggest "and" instead of "although"; there's no contradiction here.
  • "which bombarded the positions of the Presidential troops until they finally capitulated": I think you can drop "finally".
  • "fired three shots to alert the Presidential forces of the arrival of the Congressionalists": I think it should be "to the arrival", not "of", but why would Esmeralda want to alert the enemy?
  • "with a successful result": a bit vague -- what actually happened?
  • "Renamed Izumi, the Japanese Navy": needs to be rephrased; the Japanese Navy was not renamed. Perhaps "It was renamed Izumi and employed by the Japanese Navy in ...".

All fairly minor points; looks good overall. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Mike Christie! I didn't even have a chance to leave you a talk page message before you caught this. :-) Thanks so much for this review. I've tried to address all of your thoughts, and some specific points follow:
    • "Struck" and "stricken" are synonyms in naval parlance. I've added a more specific links to wikt:stricken#Adjective, as I'm looking to give the definition of the word. Does that work?
    • The Background section: I added "Esmeralda was the most capable of these ships, and although British neutrality meant that it could not be delivered until after the war's conclusion, the Chileans ordered it with the intention of gaining naval superiority over their neighbors", citing Grant's Rulers, Guns, and Money. I haven't added the requested dates for the end of the War of the Pacific/Esmeralda's completion, but I can if this change is not enough to satisfy your point.
    • The conning tower point is tricky. It had a conning tower in the sense that the position was used like one, but unusually it was not one of the best-protected areas on the ship -- it was only protected against rifle fire. I've added the rifle fire bit to the article, and could swap "proper" for "full-fledged" if that makes more sense?
    • Three shots: that's an excellent catch. I went back to the source and clarified that the ship's crew was alerting the Congressionalists to their arrival. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fixes all look good. Re the conning tower, how about saying it lacked a "fully-armored conning tower", if that was the main shortcoming? And one more point I just noticed: you refer to Esmerelda almost throughout as "it", but in the "Chilean Civil War" section you twice use "she", which I assume is an oversight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I've gone with "thickly armored," if that works? From the descriptions in sources, it sounds fully armored... just not against naval guns. :-) I've also added an explanatory note in the article for that + addressed your second point. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Changes all look good. Perhaps "heavily-armored" instead of "thickly-armored"? But either is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • It's only taken us ship types a dozen years or more to notice, but Conway's is actually an anthology with each navy's chapter written by various contributors. And Gardiner is the editorial director, not an actual editor of the volume.
    • Fun fact, I've actually been doing this for over a decade now. ;-) I've no clue how I missed it here, but it's now fixed. I kept Gardiner as an editor because I imagine he still took on some editorial duties... thoughts?
  • You have a habit of shortening page ranges instead of expressing them fully in the References section.
    • I used to shorten them all the time, but that was later disallowed by policy! I believe I've fixed them.
  • A lot of journal articles are missing page numbers.
    • Added. There's one left that does not have page numbers in the online copy.
  • Italicize ship names when they appear in article titles.
    • Done.
  • It would be nice to see some ISBNs (or OCLC numbers for older titles). And ISSNs for journals
    • I've added these for all that I can! Mechanical Engineer either doesn't have an ISSN or isn't coming up in a search.
  • While I can't really speak to the Spanish-language sources, the English ones are known to me as highly reliable.
  • Although surely you can find something a bit more academically inclined than the Encyclopedia Britannica for the Esmeralda Affair?
    • Britannica is only being used as a source for the name (i.e. to support calling it the "Esmeralda Affair"), and I don't have a replacement for it.
      • Scratch that. Some Google searching revealed that Lauderbaugh, a source I'm already using, calls it by the same name.
  • Formatting of the endnotes is consistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cplakidas edit

Looks interesting, reserving a spot. Constantine ✍ 10:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: - are you still anticipating making a review here? Hog Farm Talk 03:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Yes, within the next two-three days at most. Constantine ✍ 08:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Design
  • despite the determination of ... the Ottoman Empire ... to remain neutral in the conflict AFAIK the Ottoman Empire purchased its warships abroad during this time, so why is this relevant?
  • for the earlier Japanese cruiser Tsukush 'earlier' is vague, the date of construction should be provided here, or, if it was the immediately preceding design, replace with something to that effect.
  • link commerce raiders?
  • nearly 400 tons less armor, which was about 3.5 percent of the ship's total displacement. it may be unclear at first reading what 'which' refers to, i.e. the 400 tons, or the entirety of the ship's displacement. Perhaps 'nearly 400 tons less armor. The Esmeralda's armor totalled only about 3.5 percent of the ship's total displacement.' or similar?
  • especially as Esmeralda's armor deck gave it a margin of safety shouldn't it be 'armored deck' or 'deck armor'?
  • Esmeralda's ten-inch (254 mm) guns caliber in mm given here but not in the two previous mentions in the same section
  • Link Vavasseur mounting
Chilean service
  • This arrangement would later become known as the "Esmeralda Affair" not entirely sure what this affair was and why it was scandalous (was it the bribe, or that he handed over a powerful warship? was the transaction hidden from the Ecuadorian populace/parliament?)
Japanese service
  • Deployed alongside much of the rest of the Japanese Navy, Izumi was assigned to a green water blocking squadron and a blue water attacking fleet I had to read this a couple of times before it dawned on me that this refers to its role in the exercises. Perhaps an additional clarification is in order.
  • the Japanese cruiser Akashi struck a mine link to naval mine
  • link auxiliary cruisers
  • the former Prime Minister of Japan and the first Japanese Resident-General of Korea Itō Hirobumi this reads as if they are two different people; suggest striking the second 'the'.

That's it. Although I had no knowledge of the context of this ship's history, I was able to grasp the article easily, and learned a few things in the process. A very well-written article. Constantine ✍ 17:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Cplakidas, for your very close read of the article. I appreciate the eye for detail! I've addressed all of your comments. The trickiest one was the Esmeralda Affair—the scandal was that it was negotiated in secret and facilitated with bribes, so I've tried to clarify that in the text. To your Ottoman question, I added "new and old warships" to the section. The source, Grant, says that the Peruvian government approached the Ottomans with the goal of buying one or more of their existing warships. The Chileans got wind of this and asked the British to diplomatically intervene. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • "Jeune École". Foreign words should be in lang templates, not just in italics.
  • Link treatise.
  • "the emerging Jeune École school of French naval thought". Yu have already said that the Jeune École school was French. Does that need to be repeated? Ditto "naval".
  • "Armstrong had or would soon be constructing protected cruisers for over a dozen countries." This doesn't quite work grammatically. Perhaps 'Armstrong was or would soon be constructing ...'?
  • "including its propulsion plant and magazines." The bit about the magazines does not seem to be a summary of anything in the main article.
  • "a good portion of the ship". "good portion" is ambiguous. Perhaps 'large part'?
  • "an Admiralty comparison of Esmeralda to the Mersey design". Optional: → 'an Admiralty comparison of Esmeralda with the Mersey design'.
  • "which measured out to about". Suggest "measured out" → 'was'.
  • "ten-inch ... 10-inch ... 10-inch ... ten-inch ..."
  • "it was 1 inch (25 mm) over the important machinery". Perhaps 'it was 1 inch (25 mm) thick over the important machinery'?
  • "the various sources of information about the incident ... do not agree with that interpretation". Just to be clear, they argue that none of the documents support an interpretation that that Esmeralda was ordered to block an annexation of Panama?
  • "Esmeralda engaged in a prolonged chase with the steamer Imperial". This reads as if they were jointly pursuing some third party, which I assume is not what you wish to convey. Maybe "with" → 'of'?
  • "to allay suspicion". Is it known whose suspicion they wished to allay?
  • "Itata reached Chile without incident". Possibly 'Itata reached Chile without further incident'?
  • "but was returned to San Diego with the acquiescence of the Congressionalists." Why was she returned? Who to? Or just to pick up a further cargo of armaments. How did the acquiescence of the Congressionalists enter into this?
  • "while kicking off the successful Liberal Revolution.". I am unsure that "while kicking off" is encyclopedic.
  • "(respectively)". I don't think that parentheses are needed.
  • "warned off an army hospital ship and troop transport". Was one vessel fulfilling both these roles? If not, can I suggest 'warned off an army hospital ship and a troop transport '.
  • "the Japan Weekly Mail reported". Is it necessary to give the source in line? You don't for anything else. Providing hte information in Wikipedia's voice seems acceptable.
  • "¥90,975". Any, even approximate, idea as to what this equates to in today's money? Or even in 1912 in a more familiar currency.

Welcome back to FAC. You haven't lost your touch. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gog the Mild, thanks for the review and the compliment! I've actioned most of these with some comments below:
  • I won't have access again to Sondhaus until tomorrow, at which point I'll address the "including its propulsion plant and magazines" point.
  • "various sources": I've added "necessarily" to better convey the ambiguity.
  • "allay suspicion": Do the next sentences about the Itata incident not answer that question? :-))) I've edited the sentence.
  • "returned to San Diego": I've rewritten the sentence. "Itata reached Chile without further incident, but to put a halt to the escalating situation, the Congressionalists sent the cargo ship back to San Diego with its cargo intact."
  • Japan Weekly Mail: this wording is strange because I was writing around the newspaper saying it would happen, vs. reporting later that it did happen, leaving room for changed plans. Normally I might just drop the info, but it's a rare useful example of the type of task the ship would have been asked to do during this time. Thoughts?
  • I learned awhile back that currency conversions with things as large as warships can be problematic. (See the discussion beginning "how is the sale figure denominated in the original source".) That said, this smaller scrapping bid might be more appropriate than converting the original cost of a full-fledged capital ship, particularly if it's in 1912 values. Let me know what you think. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Chilean_cruiser_Esmeralda_(1883)/archive1&oldid=1151425072"