Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Brazilian battleship São Paulo

< 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.

Closed with consensus to promote.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian battleship São Paulo

edit
Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan]


São Paulo is one of my old articles; I penned the original version back in April 2009. I've now rewritten most of the article and I believe it meets the current A-class criteria. Thanks for your reviews in advance – I greatly appreciate any constructive comments or suggestions. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from baha
    • No format issues really jump out at me, but I'm sure Dank will annotate them much better anyway.
    • The "Late career" section isn't really clear as to her final fate: she snapped her tow lines and disappeared, and then the intro and infobox say "sunk" without saying where or how exactly, nor how it was confirmed by the search forces (or did somebody else after the search was called off?).
    • The 1918 boiler incident is vague on why/how they failed. Do we know if it was poor maintenance, defect, age, etc.?
    • In the "Revolt of the Lash" section, the last paragraph seems to insinuate that the mutineers were sailing the ships around and firing the guns off... but it's not mentioned at all that they left port at Rio or what they might have been shooting at.
  • I think a bit of work and she'll be a fine A-class. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This is a very good article, and I'm close to supporting it's promotion, but I think that a few improvements are needed first:
    • "In particular, the United States now actively attempted to court Brazil as an all" and the following material seems to come out of nowhere.
    • "Soon after they arrived, the 5 October 1910 revolution began" - you should specify which country this affected, as it's a bit confusing
    • "Brazil declared that they would be neutral in the First World War on 4 August," - which year does this refer to, and "Brazil declared that they" and "but the sinking of Brazilian merchant ships by German U-boats led them to revoke their neutrality," is poor grammar and vague (you're talking about the actions of the Brazilian Government here)
    • "After the boilers were fired, São Paulo attempted to entice Minas Geraes ... However, São Paulo was only able to sway one old torpedo boat to her cause" - surely it was the crew of São Paulo who were doing the enticing and swaying (this wording sounds like some kind of odd inter-ship romance!).
    • Did Minas Geraes really only have a single cook? No wonder her crew were cranky!
    • Footnote four doesn't seem very relevant and could be cut Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments are sufficiently addressed for me to support this article's promotion. I think that it should receive a comprehensive copyedit before it goes to a FAC through. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support -- Completed my usual copyedit, hopefully haven't inadvertently altered any meaning. Apart from that things look pretty good as far as structure, referencing, supporting materials and coverage go. Just a couple of other points:
    • ...inadequate training for incompetent sailors... -- Do we really mean "incompetent", or would "inexperienced" be more accurate? The latter seems to make more sense...
    • ...transporting the deceased Uruguyan Minister to the United States... -- Um, Minister for what? Or is it supposed to be "Prime Minister"? If not, I'm sure the country must've had more than one Minister, so if we don't know then we should say "a deceased Uruguyan Minister"...
    • You don't use "p." or "pp." with page numbers as a general rule, but in some cases you do. I prefer to see them in all cases but at least it should be consistent.
    • Further Reading entries would look better if formatted the same as References, e.g. last name, first name for the author and so on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - most are just suggestions so if you disagree I'm happy to discuss Support
    • The citation check tool reveals a couple of errors: "Scheina, "Brazil," 404." and "Ribeiro, "Os Dreadnoughts." - both "- "Multiple references contain the same content".
    • One dab link to be fixed (to VTE).
    • External links check out (no action required).
    • Images lack alt text, you might consider adding it (although I don't believe its a requirement).
    • The first paragraph of the lead isn't really a paragraph, its just two sentences. As such you might consider restructuring the lead a little.
      • I agree that the first paragraph doesn't entice the reader or offer them a quick summary ... both reasonable goals ... but I think Ed made the right judgment call here. To say everything that needs to be said in a way that's easiest to digest, it's best to start the narrative part as quickly as possible, and Ed does that starting in the third sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I understand what you are saying, the choice of language in this sentence seems a little contradictory: "Beginning in the late 1880s, Brazil's navy fell into obsolescence, helped along by an 1889 revolution, which deposed Emperor Dom Pedro II, and a 1893 civil war." Specifically "obsolescence" and "helped", perhaps "hindered" instead?
    • Some inconsistency in the presentation of ISBNs (some have dashs and others do not).
    • This is a little imprecise to me: "but the 12-inch were not", maybe reword to "but the 12-inch guns were not".
    • The structure of the "First World War" section could be reworked. Specifically the first paragraph is very short (only one sentence) and is therefore not really a paragraph at all.
      • I deleted the first sentence. The source doesn't indicate why that fact might be important, and it's hard to work it into the narrative, as you say. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems a little informal to me: "while Minas Geraes was totally refitted", perhaps "refitted completely" or something similar?
    • I don't understand what this means I'm afraid: "Under repair in part of 1934 and 1935".
      • Fixed. The source isn't more specific. - Dank (push to talk)
    • "São Paulo carried the Brazilian President Getúlio Dornelles Vargas up the River Plate to Buenos Aires." Why? Anotherclown (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a few comments:

Background:

  • "to finance a large naval building program in 1904,[2] which authorized the construction of a large number of warships" - repetition of "large"
  • "While the first designs for these ships were derived from the Norwegian coastal defense ship Norge and the British (originally Chilean) Swiftsure class,[N 4] the contracted ships were to follow Armstrong Whitworth's Design 439 (Design 188 in Vickers' files)." - I was unclear when I read this whose the first designs were (e.g. had the Brazilians proposed the design or Armstrong's). Could the Vickers file bit go in a footnote? (it would make the sentence easier to read)
  • "the new dreadnought concept, which premiered in December 1906" - being picky, can a concept premier?

Early career:

  • "by the wife of Brazil's minister to Great Britain, Regis de Oliveira," - if Regis de Oliveira's name came first in this construct, you'd avoid any potential confusion that Regis was the minister, as opposed to the wife (some might not know that Regis is a female name)
  • "The former believed..." - unclear if the former here is the naval officers, or the naval officers plus the president.

Late career:

  • "Stricken on 2 August 1947" - I ended up clicking on the link because I wasn't sure what this meant in this context - it could be worth expanding the sentence slightly (e.g. "Stricken from the naval lists..."?)

Cheers, and enjoyed reading the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Hchc, and my apologies for taking so long to get back to you. All of these should be addressed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers - support Hchc2009 (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks everyone for the comments, I'll be getting to them as soon as I can. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • in the Background section I think that this sentence needs work: "Even though the greater cost of these ships meant that only two ships could begin immediately, plans went ahead". Two ships could begin what? Perhaps try: "Even though the greater cost of these ships meant that construction could begin on only two ships immediately, plans went ahead";
    • in the First World War section, please check the spelling here: "deceased Uruguyan Minister..." I think it should be "Uruguayan";
    • please check the spelling in Footnote # 3 "Argentinian" - shouldn't this be "Argentinean"? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer. These are my edits, and I'll make a few more. - Dank (push to talk) 11:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Friendly reminder: this ACR will pass the 28 day mark in about two days time. My comments are minor and wouldn't lead me to oppose, but have the others been addressed? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, this review has now been open 29 days. From what I can tell, there are comments from Nick-D, Ian Rose and Anotherclown that might not have been addressed, as well as my own minor comments. As there are two supports, there is probably enough support to leave the review open for a bit longer if a successful outcome is possible; otherwise it should really be listed for closing (although, as I say this, there is a large backlog of ACRs that need closing, so listing it might not mean anything, anyway). What does everyone think? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well rules are rules, and I think it at least needs to be listed for closing. As you say, it's unlikely anything will happen to it for a while no matter what since it will go towards the bottom of an already long (by ACRs-ready-for-closure standards) list and neither you nor I can touch any of them due to our involvement one way or t'other. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2011 (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/Brazilian_battleship_São_Paulo&oldid=428486874"