Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Spanish battleship España

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) 18:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Spanish battleship España

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another member of the small and ill-fated Spanish contingent, España was the first member of her class to be completed, the only one finished before the start of World War I, and as a result, the only European dreadnought battleship to avoid the conflict. The ship's luck did not hold out for long, and in 1923, she ran aground off the coast of Spanish Morocco and could not be freed. Some of the ship's guns were salvaged and employed as coastal artillery until the 1990s, and one is still on display. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm

Add a short description, it helps vaguely with some stuff.
- Done, but doesn't Wikidata do this? I've seen people adding them to articles I watch to override the Wikidata generated one, but I don't really understand the purpose (if the Wikidata one isn't good enough, shouldn't that one be fixed?)
  - In this case, the Wikidata description doesn't exist
"The ship was in the early 1910s as part of a naval construction program" - I do believe you're missing a word here.
- Fixed
"during which she accidentally ran aground and was seriously damaged that necessitated significant repairs before she could return to Spain" - this just doesn't read smoothly to me. Can this be rephrased?
- Reworked, see how that reads now
  - Much better
"work on lightening the ship was nearly completion when" - Should be completed, not completion
- Whoops!
You don't explicitly state that the commissioned date was 23 October 1913, you just state that work ended then. It would be best if this were stated directly.
- Good catch
"The ship embarked on a major cruise to South Africa in 1920" - I'm assuming you mean South America, as a 1920 cruise to South America is mentioned, but the word Africa appears nowhere in the article.
- Yes, fixed
"After the overthrow of King Alfonso XIII, his namesake ship Alfonso XIII, was renamed España in April 1931." - I'm not convinced the second comma is needed.
- Removed
Images could use alt text
- Added

That's all I see right now. Good work. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm trying to do what I can to keep the ACR line rolling, especially since I've recently added two nominations myself. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I need to get back to that myself. Parsecboy (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Spanish battleship España sandwiching screenshot.png

Sandwiching screenshot

The images are all free.
Sandwiching between the diagram and the infobox is an issue—see image.
- As at the FAC for Alfonso XIII, this depends on what resolution you're using, and I don't really want to get into the game of moving an image because it doesn't work for one person (which will inevitably create issues for others).
Need reliable source for File:Acorazado España (en 1913).svg and File:Acorazado España (en 1923).svg
- Added

(t · c) buidhe 01:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe. Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

Nice article. A few comments:

Lead and infobox

suggest "España was the lead ship of the España class of Spanish dreadnought battleships, the two other ships being Alfonso XIII and Jaime I."
- Works for me
suggest "The ship was built in the early 1910s in the context of closer Spanish relations with Britain and France, as part of a naval construction program to rebuild the fleet after the losses of the Spanish–American War."
- Done
for "Spain remained neutral" link Spain during World War I
- Done
vary significant in "significant damage that required significant repairs" extensive?
- I think I have a tendency to overuse "significant" that I need to work on ;)
link nmi in the infobox
- Done

Body

lk=on to link kW
- Done
"though Italy initially declared neutrality"
- Good point
"to do the same. The Italians later joined the Allies the following year, and as a result, España and her sisters were the only European dreadnoughts to avoid the war."
- Added
"Once their third sister, Jaime I was completed by 1921, they were organized as the 1st Squadron of the fleet. Later in the 1920s, the three España-class ships were transferred to the Training Squadron." seems out of place chronologically
- Good point - moved down

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

This hard-luck class of battleships always makes for interesting reading. I suspect that there's a story here about the sheer scale of the technical competence needed to successfully operate complex military hardware in demanding circumstances (a topic the more technical types of Australian military historians tend to stress as being a key concern for the Australian military). The article is in good shape, and I have the following comments:

" built in the early 1910s as part of a naval construction program to rebuild" - tweak to avoid repeating 'built/build'
- Rebuild -> restore (though I'm not sure I love that solution - if you have any better ideas, I'd be happy to hear)
"Jaime Janer Róbinson, upon whom Poincaré later conferred the Légion d'honneur in 1914" - perhaps briefly note the circumstances for which this was awarded (was it due to his service in the Spanish Navy, or was he fighting for France?)
- Clarified
"the Spanish decided " - I'd suggest tweaking this to 'the Navy decided' or similar
- Done
"several violent storms hit the ship and caused further damage on 19 November" - this reads awkwardly - were there really several storms on the same day?
- Good catch - that was clearer before I rewrote it, "by" is more accurate
The material on the use of guns is a bit unclear. Am I right in reading this as the guns having been mounted as coastal artillery prior to them being transferred to Caditz in 1953? If so, I'd suggest tweaking to make this clearer.
- The problem is, the sources are unclear - McGovern's article is primarily focused on the batteries that guarded the Strait of Gibraltar and only mentions the battery at Cadiz as sort of a tangent. These accounted for only 3 of the ship's 8 guns, but what was done with the others (or all 8 during the almost 30 years between the ship's loss and the installation at Cadiz) I don't know.
Do we know what happened to the ship's wreck? Was it scrapped in-situ, or simply abandoned?
- That I don't know - Fernandez et. al. don't go into any detail as to what happened after the Navy left it. I did come across a mention in the 4/1973 Warship International that states that "The armament and some equipment was salved but the hull itself was abandoned as beyond salvage. The guns were later used as shore batteries." This is representative of the general problem with this and the above point - these were fairly obscure ships even among early 20th century battleships and their fates are not well-documented in English, even in more detailed accounts like Fernandez et. al. or Rodriguez Gonzalez.
Was there an inquiry into the grounding and loss of the ship? What did it find if so? (presumably the captain and other responsible officers were sacked given that every navy seems to do this following a non-trivial grounding and lots do it after even minor incidents). Nick-D (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there was, but I haven't seen any reference to it. Thanks Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough on this issue and the others above where sources are limited. My comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

Lead

in the context of closer Spanish relations with Britain and France. I appreciate that this is as a result of feedback from a previous reviewer, but I'm struggling to understand what this means from the lead alone. After reading the background, I suggest rephrasing to something like "and in context of Spain coming to a cooperative defensive agreement with Britain and France."
- See if how it reads now works for you
In the late 1910s, she served in the 1st Squadron In the service section, it seems to imply the 1st Squadron was formed in 1921 when the thrid ship of the class was finished.
- Good catch, fixed in the body
during which she accidentally ran aground. The accident caused significant damage that required significant repairs... There is a bit of repetition of language. Suggest rephrasing along the lines of "This incident caused significant damage that required major repairs..."
- Fixed

Design

I feel the first paragraph should be in its own section as it is much more "Background". But would that be quite inconsistent with other battleship articles? If it stays, can I suggest ending the first paragraph along the lines of "quickly decided to build their own dreadnoughts, the first of which was España." The transition between the first and second paragraphs is quite jarring otherwise.
- This is generally how I do it - I don't really like one-paragraph sections if I can at all avoid them. I've added your suggestion.
Depending on the 1st Squadron issue mentioned above, should the material about the squadron organisation be moved to follow that of the South American tour?

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zawed Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Is there a publisher location for Fizsimmons?
- Added
Aside from the above, the bibliographic formatting is consistent
The sources are all high-quality RS.
The ISBN for Conways links to a 1997 edition--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Worldcat is confused - the ISBN is the converted 11-digit one that's in my copy. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not surprised, but perhaps one reason to stick with the ISBN as published.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The 11-digit has the same result :P Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, not surprised what with the multitude of reprints and reprint publishers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2020 (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.