Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov/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) 17 July 2019 [1].

Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov edit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dvenadsat Apostolov was one of the earliest Russian predreadnoughts built for the Black Sea Fleet. Completed in the early 1890s, her most notable action was participating in the unsuccessful attempt to recapture the mutinous battleship Potemkin in 1905. The ship was disarmed six years later and became a submarine depot ship in 1912. Immobile, she was controlled by whichever side captured Sevastopol after the Russian Revolution. Dvenadsat Apostolov stood in for Potemkin during the filming of The Battleship Potemkin in 1925 before she was scrapped. The article just passed a MilHist ACR and is in good shape. Regardless, I'd like reviewers to look for any remaining BritEng, unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM edit

This article is in great shape, and I really had to nitpick at Milhist ACR to find anything. A couple of minor things:

  • link displacement at first mention (in the Design section), rather than later
  • you could turn lk=on to link kW in the body and infobox

That's all I have. Great job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that all of my noms have such easy fixes! Thanks for your prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

  • Both images are appropriately licenced.
  • Alt text?
    • I never bother with alt text as there's serious disagreement about how much detail is necessary and/or appropriate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Then we may have a problem. The MoS, in MOS:ACCIM, states "Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users." No ifs nor buts. I would, obviously, be happy to be pointed towards an escape hatch. I understand that there is disagreement as just what should be in the alt text and am prepared to give considerable latitude. But I don't see how I can sign the article off as meeting the MoS when it doesn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: This discussion might be informative. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Very interesting. Bottom line, as I see it: the MoS says what it says; this article doesn't comply with it. My opinion and those of the editors contributing to the discussion are irrelevant to this. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template for the infobox doesn't allow for alt text. I added one for the diagram.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's irritating, but I suppose can't be helped. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild edit

  • "It also decided to move the forward turret back 7 feet 8 inches (2.3 m) because it thought that the ship might be bow-heavy, and revised the armament to four 12-inch (305 mm) guns" "revised" → 'revise'.
  • "All together these changes" "All together" → 'Altogether'.
  • "and could depress to −5° and could traverse 270°." "and could ... and could"?
  • Note 1: "All dates used in this article are New Style" Why the upper case N and S?
    • The template for displaying old and new style dates capitalizes the abbreviations for them, so I just perpetuated it.
Consistency is good, but the template is not used in this article, so why not go with the MoS and lower case them?
  • "but she was not fully ready for service until 1894" Do we know when in 1894 she was fully ready? Or what was lacking when she joined the fleet on 17 June 1893?
    • Annoyingly no.
  • "prevented an attempt by Captain Koland" The gentleman has not been formally introduced.
    • And I can't even find out his first name or anything else about him. Which probably means that he didn't make flag rank.
I meant: is he the captain of the Dvenadsat Apostolov? If so, could this be mentioned somewhere.
  • "The Naval Technical Committee proposed" "both proposals were rejected by the Naval Technical Committee" Not a big deal, but it reads oddly that the Naval Technical Committee were rejecting their own proposal.
    • Reworked. I was confusing several different proposals that weren't actually simultaneous.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was initially approved by the Navy Minister, Admiral Ivan Grigorovich in June 1909, but this was later reversed." Optional: Delete the second "this".
  • "she was used on various harbor duties" "on" → 'for'.
  • "while reportedly serving as a mine storage hulk" Does "reportedly" serve any purpose?
    • That's the language used by my source.
Damn. A fine point of prose wrecked by an inconvenient source.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two follow up comments for your attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think that things are clearer now. See if you agree.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Another cracking article. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Uncited content: see final sentence of first paragraph in "History" section
  • Formats: "Arbazov" in ref 6 appears to be a spelling error
  • Quality and reliability: no issues

Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Always something, isn't there? Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Parsecboy edit

I reviewed this at the Milhist ACR and my concerns were address there. One little nitpick:

  • A couple of dupe links have crept in since the A-class review.

Nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

I do have some comments here.

  • Dvenadsat Apostolov (Russian: Двенадцать Апостолов—"Twelve Apostles") Unlink Russian here because of common term.
  • in exchange for an additional 75 long tons (76 t) in displacement Link tonnes here.
  • had six Siemens dynamos with a total output of 540 kilowatts (720 hp) Shoudln't horsepower be here the primary unit?
    • I usually see generator/dynamo output in kW.
  • Interesting, I'll take this one.
  • Germans in Sevastopol in May 1918 and handed over to the Allies in December 1918 Unlink Allies here.
  • by both sides during the Russian Civil War Unlink Russian Civil War here.
  • but was abandoned by the White Russians when they evacuated Unlink White Russians here.
  • Hey Sturm you forgot to unlink the second "Russian Civil War". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right; my eyes skimmed right over your comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good in my view. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: This looks ready to be promoted. Can I nominate another?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure -- I was close to going through this one for possible promotion on the weekend but the older noms took precedence... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sturm, about ready to promote this but one query (aside from "reportedly", but you and Gog have been over that):
  • She was captured by both sides during the Russian Civil War -- um, simultaneously, or one after the other?
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed this; I've been tied up on other stuff this last week. Clarified in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2019 (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/Russian_battleship_Dvenadsat_Apostolov/archive1&oldid=906751241"