Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883)

< 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.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883) edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): The ed17 (talk)

Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Hey all! Chile's Esmeralda was the world's first modern protected cruiser, a ship type that made British shipbuilder Armstrong Mitchell (later Armstrong Whitworth) a fortune. Variously lauded and criticized for its design particulars at the time of its construction, Esmeralda was quickly outpaced by rapid advances in naval technology. When Chile found itself falling further and further behind in an arms race with Argentina, Chile sold the ship to Japan to help fund a new armored cruiser. Izumi, as the ship was renamed, took part in the Russo-Japanese War and was the first warship to spot the Russian fleet during the decisive Battle of Tsushima in 1905. Afterwards, the ship served in subsidiary roles for the rest of the war and was scrapped in 1912. I'm looking forward to any and all comments y'all can provide! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A Chilean cruiser that saw combat with Japan is certainly a curiosity! It's also good to see you at ACR Ed, after what I think might be a bit of a break? I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • I think that the 'design' section should start with material explaining why the Chilean Government ordered this ship, and wanted such an advanced vessel
  • Relatedly, the material in the second and third paras of the 'design' section and the 'public reaction' section feels a bit jumbled. I'd suggest restructuring this material as background on why the ship was ordered and the Chilean Government's requirements, a summary of the design, and then material on expert and public reactions.
  • It's a bit unclear whether the ship was actually superior: the RN's critique of the design seems pretty devastating. I'd suggest being clearer about this as well - e.g. Armstrongs claimed the ship was the bee's knees and a number of other commentators were impressed, but the RN thought it was actually fatally flawed.
  • How did this ship end up with the Congressionalist faction during the civil war? Did all the Navy side with this faction, or did the ship's officers and/or crew make a decision here?
  • Why did Chile dispose of this newish and powerful ship during the arms race with Agentina? Was it considered out of date, and the funds used from selling it would be better employed on new vessels?
  • From checking my copy of Kaigun, the ship is mentioned only once, as part of a table. I'd suggest removing this as 'further reading' unless I'm missing something here.
  • The article seems a bit under-illustrated given what's available on Commons - File:Twms gen twcms 00 6077 large.jpg for instance would be a good addition. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The ed17: In case you've missed this, a couple of reviews are available. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Nick-D! I've been mostly offline due to unforeseen real life intrusions, but I also forgot to add the page to my watchlist, so... :-) I'll aim to work on the bulk of your comments tomorrow! I've removed Kaigun from the further reading section; it was there because it was listed as a reference prior to my rewrite. On the visuals, that particular image was removed during the GAN (near the top) because its copyright status in the US can't be ascertained. Most of the others on Commons are small, blurry, or both, but I did add File:Japanese cruiser Izumi at Sasebo 1908.jpg thanks to Japan's copyright laws (no need to find a publishing date). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm a bit behind on this "tomorrow" promise. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hey Nick-D, I ended up being very behind on this, but I've made several edits based on your suggestions. I reorganized and rewrote parts of the design section, made Armstrong's intentions more clear, tweaked the paragraph about the civil war, and added a naval historian's speculation about the sale motives. I'm open to further ideas on how to improve the design section! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've also added a new lead image that I found (if I'm honest, accidentally). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many thanks to Muwatallis II for adding another image! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry, I've been woefully slow in following up here. I think that my comments are now sufficiently addressed, especially given the limited sources. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Esmeralda1884.png: source link is dead, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: I've updated the source and public domain tag. As the photograph was published in 1884, it is in the public domain in the US and is assumed to be in the public domain in countries that use the 70 years after the death of the creator criterion. As it was published in the UK, I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not it needs PD-UK-unknown as well... I'm honestly not sure. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

Will take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exact complement of 296 needs cited
  • Where is the 600 tons of coal figure in the infobox coming from?
  • Namesake does not seem to be explicitly cited
  • Source link for the infobox image appears to be dead
  • Be consistent with how you use locations for USA places - some have city, but no state (I'd recommend for Sater definitely including the state, as Athens, Georgia is not going to be the obvious Athens to think of), while some have the state abbreviated and others spell it out
  • Recommend adding ISBNs to the books that have them
  • Sources look fine, as does image licensing (aside from the dead source look). Prose is good. Anticipating supporting. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hog Farm: Thanks for the review! All of these should be fixed with exceptions/notes below.
    • The Athens, Georgia, location is interesting as TCMOS advises against including the state name when it's named in the publisher (in this case, the University of Georgia). But I agree that it could be confusing, so IAR seems best. I've avoided adding ISBNs as they're not required, and as many of the references were copied from a thesis I wrote, they didn't start with ISBNs. :-) The namesake is ... curious. That's something that survived from the older revisions of the page, prior to when I started rewriting it, and I can't find a citation to support it. It seems logical (I don't think it was named for The Hunchback of Notre Dame character!), but it also seems at least within the realm of possibility that the ship was named for the famed Chilean corvette that was sunk a few years earlier, which in turn was likely named for the Spanish frigate. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Parsecboy edit

  • Can you crop the infobox image?
  • Link magazine (artillery) in the lead
  • Also in the lead, you might add the years of the Russo-Japanese War
  • Move the link for displacement to the first use
  • Armstrong's argument is very similar to that of the Jeune Ecole, which was in vogue at the time (and was what drove countries like Italy to buy Armstrong's cruisers) - probably worth making that connection
  • Were the main guns in proper turrets, or in open barbettes with gun shields? The lead image appears to suggest the latter (and Conway's says barbettes)
  • Any specifics on the boiler type? Conway's says "cyl boilers", which is their shorthand for fire-tube boilers
  • Link "compartments" to engine room, and I'd link ihp and knots in the text
  • "along its belt" - I'd switch belt to waterline, to avoid giving the impression the ship had belt armor

More later. Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Parsec! Appreciate all the thoughts. All of these are done except Jeune École... I don't have a source that explicitly links the two and I'm a bit worried about WP:SYNTH. Thoughts? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Sondhaus Naval Warfare, 1815–1914, in a chapter helpfully titled "The Jeune Ecole", he directly links Giovanni Bausan to the Jeune Ecole, same with Japan, and the early US cruisers, of which he states: "The emphasis on cruisers reflected the Jeune Ecole spirit of the times - pages are 149–154. Sondhaus is also pretty explicit in linking Esmeralda and all of her derivatives to the Jeune Ecole in Navies of Europe. There's an article in Mariner's Mirror vol 91 that covers it as well.
  • Also, I came across an article in Warship 2004 that will probably help on this point (and perhaps on other topics more generally - see snippets here) - @Sturmvogel 66: has a copy in his library and may be able to help you out there. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Warship article links the Esmerelda-type cruisers to the Jeune Ecole via the latter's belief that cheap, specialized fast cruisers with only a few large-caliber guns could deal with battleships. I can scan that page for you and add the article to the bibliography if you like. The Mariner's Mirror article is a book review of Arms and the State: Sir William Armstrong and the Remaking of British Naval Power, 1854–1914 by Marshal J. Bastable, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2004 ISBN 0-7546-3404-3 which definitely should be consulted to firmly pin the two together.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better book on the Jeune Ecole would probably be Roksund, Arne (2007). The Jeune École: The Strategy of the Weak. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-15723-1.. I have a scanned copy if you can't get it locally.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello both! I've added a sentence on Jeune École to the Armstrong paragraph; it's based on Naval Warfare, 1815–1914. I own Bastable, and despite the book review the link between Jeune École and Esmeralda is frustratingly not explicit; it gets close, but says only that "this dynamic market for cruisers lasted throughout the 1880s, fuelled [sic] by the belief among many naval strategists that the days of the battleship and 'command of the sea' were over and the era of submarines, fast cruisers and wars on commerce had begun." (Basically, all the tenets of Jeune École but he doesn't mention it for several more pages, and even then it's simply the "French strategy of war against British commerce.") Google previews show that Roksund's book doesn't mention Esmeralda, but I imagine it could be used to add a paragraph or contribute to a short "legacy" section that includes info on the general trend. @Sturm can you send the Warship article page? That sounds like it would be incredibly helpful. I would also appreciate getting Roskund if it's easy aka scanned already and only requires attaching it to an email. There's an ebook available at the Milwaukee School of Engineering, but no public access is allowed due to COVID. @Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy: Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book is on its way and I'll scan the page later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Sturm! I focused on closing out Parsec's comments below tonight, but will get to looking through the books asap. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three 14 inches (360 mm)" - add the adj=on parameter
  • There are some rounding issues that need to be fixed - the above example, a 6" rounded to 150mm, 18" converted to 460mm, "2,800 long tons (2,800 t)" - there may be others I haven't noticed
  • "It was launched" - "it" here is ambiguous - does it refer to the keel? I like to use "the completed hull" or similar
  • "with Esmeralda's arrival and the United States having neglected their navy since the end of their civil war" - this seems oddly US-centric to put directly in the text. It might be better to move it to an explanatory footnote
  • "two well-maintained 1870s central-battery ironclads, and two 1860s armored frigates." - I'd just as soon link the classes. Even if they're redlinks, I'm sure you, Sturm, or I will get to them sooner or later
  • Not a ton to go on from this source, but it mentions Izumi as having taken part in the Japanese invasion of Taiwan (1895) - might be worth looking into
  • this provides an arrival in Japan in February 1895
  • According to this, the ship was involved in the Itata incident during the Chilean Civil War
  • this references a bombardment of Vladivostok in late April or early May (it only states that it took place after the sinking of Kinshu Maru on 26 April and before 12 May)
  • According to this, Izumi carried Itō Hirobumi to Korea, where he became the Japanese Resident-General of Korea
  • this gives some additional details on the ship's activities at Tsushima
  • Per this, Izumi briefly engaged Dmitrii Donskoi at Tsushima
  • This places Izumi in the main squadron in home waters in 1900, and gives an account of that year's training exercises, which may be of use

I hope some of those are useful. Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of these are done except:
    • I kept the 'US since their civil war' mention in there because I assumed it would be an obvious question for most readers accustomed to the United States having the most powerful navy in the Americas (for more than a century). I'm definitely not against removing it or moving it to a footnote, but it's a thought.
    • The two ironclads are definitely Almirante Cochrane and Blanco Encalada, and I've added that to the text. The "armored frigates," as defined by the sources, are harder to pin down. My suspicion based on List of decommissioned ships of the Chilean Navy is that they're actually corvettes, specifically O'Higgins and Chacabuco, but I can't be sure.
  • More to come later. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All of these" was supposed to mean the suggested fixes and not the additional sources/info. I'm still planning to get to the latter. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added info from many of the books. I found what I think is a more reliable accounting of the Itata incident and used that in the article; Esmeralda and Charleston were in Acapulco together at one point, but it doesn't mention a near-fight, so I've omitted that. I don't think that there are additional details in Proceedings beyond what Corbett gave, and I decided against adding what seems to have been just a couple long-range shots between Izumi and Dmitrii Donskoi. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I forgot to come back to this for a while, but I think my comments are all addressed. Nice work Ed, and glad to see you're still writing ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 edit

Not in my area of expertise, so please be somewhat kind if I don't hit the mark on some/any/every/all comments

  • I've been told that direct quotes should be cited in the lead even if cited later (here)
  • No link to War of the Pacific?
  • No link to something for 'ironclad'?
  • Jeune Ecole is duplinked
  • Royal Navy linked on second mention
  • Linking in general is haphazard, suggest reviewing the whole article for missing one, duplinks, out of place links
  • I'm seeing at least a "10-inch" in need of conversion, may be others
  • "would be hailed by" what does 'would be' mean in this context? When did it happen?
  • " in press outlets:" can you be more specific as to what's being quoted? Presumably not every press outlet published the same quote?
  • "Esmeralda was also favorably compared " by who?
  • what is a 'primary position'?
  • "Notably, except for the designs which immediately followed Esmeralda" What is 'notable' about this?
  • I'd appreciate a little more context about the Chilean Civil War
  • " Although Esmeralda as able to get lose enough" 'close enough'?
  • I honestly don't understand from this article what the 'Itata incident' was
  • would it be possible to use {{inflation}} for prices?
  • When did Japan actually purchase the ship, and when did the transfer happen? I'm a little hazy on the dating from the article

Interesting read, from a non-expert pov. Some comments, nothing too major. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eddie891! Great name we share, and I appreciate you bringing a very useful non-expert eye to this article. I've addressed most of these issues. In particular:
  • For "in press outlets" I tweaked it to add the specific outlet I got the quote from. His remarks were published elsewhere as well, but they tended to summarize things differently; if I remember right, The Record ran the longest summation that I could find.
  • What kind of context are you looking for about the civil war?
  • I tweaked the Itata incident description to make the sequence of events clearer, and I hope it now makes more sense.
  • The {{inflation}} template is a tricky one for things like warships. It's a capital expense, so calculating it with that template can only be handled for the US and UK. See the top orange box there for more. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the ping @Eddie891:. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Pendright edit

Hello Ed - I have a few nitpickdrs for you! Pendright (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • In 1894, Esmeralda was sold to the Empire of Japan via Ecuador, an action which brought down the latter's government.
  • "an action" -> Since it was a specfic action, shouldn't it be "the action"?

Public reaction:

  • Unusually, the ship was also visited by the Prince of Wales, who would later inherit the British throne as Edward VII.[11
The Prince of Wales would seem to be the subject of the sentence and it is he who performs the action?
  • Across the Atlantic, the US Army and Navy Journal published an interview with an American naval officer which expressed his belief that Esmeralda could stand off San Francisco and drop shells into the city while being in no danger from the shorter-ranged shore-based batteries covering the Golden Gate strait.
  • the US Army and Navy Journal published an interview -> Why does US preceede Army and Navy Journal?
  • an interview with an American naval officer which expressed his belief that Esmeralda -> Replace which with who
  • "Chili [sic] has today the finest, fastest, and most perfectly equipped fighting war ship of her size afloat," he said."
warship is one word!
  • This perspective was only one of several published during this time which intended to sound alarms about the underfunded and underequipped state of the United States Navy.[15]
  • Add a comma between time and which.
  • underequipped -> It's under-equipped

Analysis and criticism:

  • In particular, although the Chilean ship's freeboard was higher than the Armstrong design which preceded it, it was still a mere 10 feet 9 inches (3.28
m) from the waterline.
  • "In particular or although" couldd be dropped?
  • Change which to that
  • it, it - back-to-back?
  • This perspective was only one of several published during this time which intended to sound alarms about the underfunded and underequipped state of the United States Navy.[15]
  • Add a comma after time
  • underequipped -> under-equipped
  • Rendel gave Esmeralda large ten-inch guns and a speed with which the ship's captain could choose the range at which they wanted to fight.
  • a speed -> the speed (definite)
  • With which -> change to that
  • at which -> seems unnecessary

Specifications:

  • The ten-inch weapons were able to be trained to either side of the ship, raised to an angle of 12°, and depressed to 5°.
  • Were able to -> Suggest changing to could.
  • Suggest replacing the comma after ship with a semmicolon and removing the comma afrer 12
  • Notably, the ship was not equipped with a sailing rig.[9]
Is sailing rig worthy of a link?
  • The ship's coal bunkers were also designed to be part of the protective scheme, but as they were not subdivided, their utility if damaged in battle were also severely questionable.
  • Is coal bunkers worthy of a link?

Chilean service:

  • Esmeralda's keel was laid by Armstrong Mitchell in Elswick, Newcastle upon Tyne, on 5 April 1881, and was given the yard number 429.
Since it's the keel that is the subject, shouldn't the sentence begin with the definite article?
  • Nevertheless, with Esmeralda's arrival and the United States having neglected their navy since the end of their civil war, Chile was able to lay claim to possessing the most powerful navy in the Americas: their fleet was centered around the protected cruiser, two well-maintained 1870s Almirante Cochrane-class central-battery ironclads and two 1860s armored frigates.
The phrase "and the United States having neglected their navy since the end of their civil war" is supplemental information and is usually is set off by commas?

Chilean Civil War:

  • Although Esmeralda as able to get lose enough to fire shots at Imperial, the cruiser was unable to reach its maximum speed due to dirty boilers and therefore lost track of the transport that night.
Although Esmeralda as able to get lose enough to fire shots at Imperial
as (was)?
  • In August, Esmralda participated in the last naval operations of the war by supporting the landing of Congressionalist troops in Quintero Bay
In August, Esmralda participated in the last naval operations of the war by supporting the landing of Congressionalist troops in Quintero Bay
"in Quintero Bay" -> At is used for specific locations
  • Finally, on the 22nd, Esmeralda attacked the forts of Viña del Mar together with the ironclad Almirante Cochrane, with a successful result.
The comma after "Finally" should be deleted because the first four words of the sentence make up the introductry phrase.

Transfer to Japan and Ecuadorian ramifications:

  • These efforts went as far as asking Armstrong to give plans for upgrading the ship's weapons, replacing its propulsion machinery, adding superstructure, and more.
  • "provide" or "furnish" might be more suitable than "give"?
  • "superstructure, and more." > Consider deleting the comma?
  • As Japan was in the midst of the First Sino-Japanese War and the Chileans did not want to appear to be violating its official neutrality, the latter induced the Ecuadorian government and its president Luis Cordero Crespo to serve as an intermediary: the older Esmeralda would first be sold and sailed to Ecuador, who would briefly take formal possession of the ship before selling it to Japan.[34]
  • This is about a 67-word sentence -> Seems like it could easily be broken up for ease of reading.
  • Who -> when referring to a country as to its government, the word which is usually used.
  • This arrangement was facilitated with a considerable payment given to the Ecuadorian president.[55]
"Given" seems redundant?
  • Prior to the battle, Izumi was assigned to support a collection of auxiliary cruisers that were charged with the Russian fleet so its Japanese counterpart could move into position to engage.
How about a comms after fleet?
  • Moreover, its crew had trouble finding the Russians after erroneously located spotting reports were radioed in by the auxiliary Shinano Maru at 4:45 am.[63]
Unclear, at least to me?

Finished - Pendright (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pendright, and long time no see! All of these should be dealt with, though not always in the manner recommended. For example, for "Izumi was assigned to support ..." I divided the sentence instead of adding a comma. I also kept the comma in "superstructure, and more" because I enjoy a good Oxford comma. ;-) The changes should all be in this diff, I think. Please let me know if you spot any other issues! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: All good, supporting! I hope all is wel with you. Pendright (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

Will commit to doing one. Hog Farm Talk 21:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Fuenzalida Bade, "Capitán de fragata Policarpo Toro Hurtado," Revista de Marina Journal 90, no. 692 (January - February 1973): 112." - Seems to be missing the author's first name, Rodrigo. Also should indicate a parameter stating what language this is in, and (ideally, if it can be done with decent precision) provide an English translation of the title
  • Ditto re language and title translation for Quiñones López 1989 and López Urrutia 2007 and Thomas Cavieres 1990 and Vio Valdivieso 1933
  • The external link appears to be used as a source, so it can probably be used
  • Source reliability looks fine

Hog Farm Talk 22:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hog Farm! I'll be getting to these as soon as possible. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: these should now be addressed except for calling out the language. I'm using Chicago style, and while translating the titles is recommended, adding what language the source is in is not. I hope that's alright, and thanks for taking a look! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Chilean_cruiser_Esmeralda_(1883)&oldid=1032350824"