Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Borodino-class battlecruiser

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Borodino class battlecruiser

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think that it's ready. Be advised that most every image of these ships in Commons is unsourced and unusable at this level. Also, please be specific in your comments on prose issues. Generic comments are not very helpful and do not allow me to identify the problem(s) so I can fix them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • the prose seems fine to me, although I made a couple of tweaks. Please check that you agree with the changes I made;
    • no dab links (no action required);
    • I didn't find any glaring MOS issues;
    • one external link shows as dead using the Featured article tools, can you please investigate? [1];
    • alt text could be added to the image, but this is just a suggestion;
    • Note # 2 might need a citation;
    • the navigation template at the bottom of the article might look better if it were collapsed (given that it is reasonably big). AustralianRupert (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all my comments have been addressed and the article has been thoroughly copyedited. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead section will need 2 paragraphs for FAC; I'd prefer to see two for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly sure where to break it in two.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine, and I added a bit to the second paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who gave approval on 5 May 1911? - Dank (push to talk)
  • "armament was to be nine 14-inch (356 mm) guns" will be a little smoother if the armament was increased relative to the previous design; was it? - Dank (push to talk)
    • 12 inches was the largest caliber yet used by the Russians.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "standard load" make sense pre-WNC? - Dank (push to talk)
  • When it's clear a ship was only designed and never built, it seems fine to me to say that the ship "had" this and that; it's obvious the design is meant. But for these, "a number of components had been ordered from foreign manufacturers", so they were in the process of putting stuff together. So in some of the sections, it's not clear to me whether you're describing the design or something that was actually built. - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a problem because the ships were actually constructed; they were just never finished.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, when you say "They could be loaded at any angle between −5° and +15°; their rate of fire was supposed to [be] three rounds per minute ...", the lack of a "supposed to" in the first clause suggests that the guns were really in place and could be loaded ... was that the case? - Dank (push to talk) 04:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kind of. The guns could only be loaded at those angles, but the reloading time was speculative because no turret was ever finished.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not important to me, but sometimes you write "degrees" and sometimes you use the symbol, you might want to do a quick search for "degrees". - Dank (push to talk)
  • Per WP:ORDINAL (and also per AP, more or less), "Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark; it is often better to recast the sentence than to simply change format ...". I've fixed it. - Dank (push to talk)
  • There's nothing on Wikipedia (3 hits, none helpful), and not a lot of ghits, that help me with "subcaliber training". I found this on a forum: "Subcaliber firing was used by the U.S. Army to develop a tank gunner's accuracy, speed, and confidence without the costs and disturbance of firing the main armament. In general, the coaxial machine gun was used for the subcaliber training. However for fire adjustment training, a standard submachine gun was mounted outside the tank. Until a standard mount could be developed, the Tank Gunnery manual recommended the following mount for the 75-mm gun on the M4. For firing, the submachine gun was connected to the firing solenoid from the coaxial machine gun. Source: Tank Gunnery, War Department Field Manual FM 17-12, July 10, 1944". Thoughts? Do we want to add this term to the glossary? - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tapering" and "decreasing" are better than "reducing" (used intransitively), although "reducing" isn't wrong. Use it sparingly. - Dank (push to talk)
  • This is the second article I've seen that needed either a glossary entry or a redlink for armored citadel. (Sovetsky_Soyuz_class_battleship was the first). Anyone want to take a stab at it? - Dank (push to talk)
  • Anyone know if Template:lang-ru is meant to be followed only by Cyrillic? (See the Notes section.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll speed it up, I want to finish this before lunch. Sentences that need ... something:
    "Delays affected construction of the ships enough that, when reviewed on 4 June 1914, launching of the first pair of ships was delayed until October 1914." needs something.
    "as shown below" ... opinions vary on this; some discussion can be found in WP:SELFREF and its talk page. Some people feel strongly that you never know where Wikipedia text will wind up and you shouldn't say something in the text that makes an assumption; sometimes the text will be "shown below", and sometimes it won't, for instance if someone is reading the article on a small screen and they're choosing not to see images and tables. I don't have a problem with it.
    I prefer for the first link to "scrap" or "scrapping" to go to ship breaking; then if there's a second link, scrap isn't bad. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment - Why are two of the book sources entirely in the footnotes? Shouldn't Breyer and Friedman be formatted the same as the rest? Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note, once this issue is addressed I'll support the article for A-class. Also a bit of disclosure, whether it's relevant or not, I reviewed and passed this article for GA status. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - made a couple tweaks. The images look good, but I'd recommend fleshing out the "purpose of use" in both. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Borodino-class_battlecruiser&oldid=533483304"