Talk:Ottoman ironclad Osmaniye

Images neeed

The image in this article is a very basic line drawing of the ships in this class, and I've tagged requesting an image of this specific ship, with more details. I'll restore the "reqphoto" tag until this specific type of image is provided; won't change back the assessment for B5 yet. Regards,DPdH (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The infobox alone meets the criteria for B5, and the line drawing, though crude, is more than sufficient. Unfortunately, these ships are pretty obscure, and there aren't any images that can be proved to be PD that are readily available. Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ottoman ironclad Osmaniye/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 12:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b Y 2.c Y 2.d Y 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.bY

• No DAB links Y
• No dead links Y
• No copyvio Y

Prose suggestions

• "A broadside ironclad, Osmaniye carried a battery of fourteen 203 mm (8.0 in) RML Armstrong guns and ten 36-pounder Armstrongs in a traditional broadside arrangement, with a single 229 mm (9.0 in) RML as a chase gun." Perhaps add "As before "a".
  • It's not necessary there.
• "and the inability of the Ottoman government to pay for the work." I'm presuming this is because of war debt. If you can find a ref that says so I'd recommend adding it.
  • The Ottoman government had chronically weak finances during this period - they weren't the "sick man of Europe" for nothing.
• "German firms, including Krupp, Schichau-Werke, and AG Vulcan, were to rebuild the ships, but after having surveyed the ships, withdrew from the project in December 1897 owing to the impracticality of modernizing the ships and the inability of the Ottoman government to pay for the work." This piece makes the later section seem as if: They agreed to do it, then withdrew, then after negotiations they agreed to do it again, but withdrew again. Is this true, or did they only withdraw once?
  • Yes, twice - basically the Ottomans had Krupp over a barrel, since they had given Krupp a very large contract to provide artillery for the army, which they used as leverage to try to get them to do the work. And Kaiser Bill wanted to play nice with the Ottomans so he could build his railroad, so he kept pressuring Krupp as well. But I felt that was too much detail to get into, given that the ship wasn't even rebuilt in the end.
• That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Iazyges! Parsecboy (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

    No problem, passing now. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)