Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Potemkin

< 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian battleship Potemkin

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the criteria. As I intend to send this on to FAC, I would appreciate it if reviewers could focus more on prose issues than perhaps they're used to doing. I'm not so worried about content, but more with style.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just some comments, not a complete review - Dank (push to talk)

  • " ‘Prince Potemkin of Tauris’ ": double quotes
  • "seakeeping qualities": either link or change to "seaworthiness"
  • "The ship had a pair of three-cylinder vertical triple-expansion steam engines, patterned after those of Tri Sviatitelia, that had a total designed output of 10,600 indicated horsepower (7,900 kW).": In general, words should be close to the words they modify, but the pronoun "that" in particular needs to stay as close as possible (even more so than "which", which also needs to stay close).
  • "a higher forecastle ..., Krupp cemented armor used as well as Belleville boilers.": missing "and", and drop "used".
  • "; four in hull embrasures and the remaining 10 mounted on the superstructure.": sentence fragment (like this one :). A colon will fix it.
  • "a 11-pound": an 11-pound
  • "; one in the bow and two on each broadside.": sentence fragment.
  • "they were supplemented by the addition of": they were supplemented by
  • I got down to Russian battleship Potemkin#Protection. - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupportbut very close to a support:

  • "Panteleimon was captured when the Germans took the city in May 1918 " - I'd advise "took Sevastopol", as the "city" bit is referring to the object in a previous paragraph. (then, "the city" in the next sentence, etc.)
  • "and was scrapped by the Soviets in 1923." - "and was finally scrapped" might read more emphatically
  • "In 1895, planning began for a new battleship for the Black Sea Fleet that would use the slipway that would become available once the battleship Rostislav was launched the following year." - this was a bit convoluted for me, and felt like it needed breaking in two (e.g. after Black Sea Fleet) or reworking slightly.
  • " who decided" - repetition of "decided"
  • "The design process was complicated by numerous changes demanded by various departments of the Naval Technical Committee, but it was finally approved on 12 June 1897" - the "it" isn't quite right (the design was approved, not the design process)
  • " Leaky oil caused a serious fire " - "Leaking oil caused..."?
  • " The electrically operated turrets were derived from those used by the Petropavlovsk-class battleships. " - I wasn't 100% sure whether derived meant "copied from" (or something similar) or "reused" in some way.
  • "their rate of fire was only one round every four minutes during their gunnery trials" - worth expanding slightly, or footnoting, to explain why "only one round" is (presumably) poor - I'm not sure what the comparison is.
  • "the first torpedo that the ship would have been equipped with was the M1904" - "was equipped with"?
  • "Later that year, or in 1908, 2.5-meter (8 ft 2 in) rangefinders were installed." - "Either later that year, or in 1908, ..." would be clearer
  • "Above the belt was the upper strake of six-inch armor that 156 feet (47.5 m) long and closed off by 6-inch transverse bulkheads fore and aft." - there's a word missing here I think.
  • "The conning tower's sides were nine inches thick." - missing metric equivalent
    • No, see the first conversion in the previous paragraph.
  • "Building of Potemkin began on 27 December 1897" - "The building..." or "The construction..."?
  • "She began sea trials in September 1903 and they continued" - "these continued"
  • "She was named in honor of Prince Grigory Potemkin, a soldier and statesman of the 18th century" - "a Russian soldier and statesman" might flow better
  • "many enlisted men refused to eat rotten meat partially infested with maggots". Can't blame them, really. :)
  • "The uprising was triggered when Ippolit Giliarovsky, the ship's second in command, allegedly threatened to punish crew members for their refusal. He summoned the ship's marine guards as well as a tarpaulin to protect the ship's deck from any blood. The crew mutinied when Giliarovsky threatened to shoot crewmen who would not eat the borscht made from the rotten meat." - this felt slightly repetitious - almost as though it could be covered in two, rather than three sentences.
  • "The mutineers killed seven of the Potemkin's eighteen officers," - hard to tell if this is "a further seven" or if it includes Giliarovsky.
  • "The following day the mutineers refused to land armed sailors and assist the revolutionaries behind the strikes take over the city as they preferred to await the arrival of the other battleships of the Black Sea Fleet." - I'm a bit comma-happy, but I would have added one to this sentence.
  • "The battleship was easily refloated although the salt water had damaged her engines and boilers" - not clear if this means there is a link between the two halves. If not, perhaps "but the salt water had damaged..."?
  • "However, this time a total of 337 main gun rounds" - I don't think you need the "However..." with "this time"
  • The bit on the film probably needs expanding - I suspect (NB: but haven't checked) that there's some material on the symbolism of the portrayal of the ship and the way that its used in the film. I was also left wondering which ship "played" the Potemkin in the film. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added the name of the ship's "stand-in", but I'm not so sure that I can do much with the symbolism of the ship, etc. as that's pretty far outside my field. I'll poke around, but I'm not sure how much I'll find. Thanks for the detailed review; I've incorporated all of your comments above with a few of my own in response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: just a few minor nitpicks

  • the duplicate link tool reports a few instances of potential overlink: Krupp cemented armor; torpedo boat; Russian battleship Tri Sviatitelia; Vice Admiral; Magazine (artillery); Naval ram; Russian battleship Rostislav; Odessa; Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov;
  • "full extent of the damage to her bottom were" --> "full extent of the damage to her bottom was"?
  • sometimes you use "the" before a ship name, and sometimes you don't. For instance, "Kolands the Dvenadsat Apostolov" v "crew of Georgii Pobedonosets";
  • "fourteen 50-calibre" --> "fourteen 50-caliber" (Engvar);
  • "the left of centre" --> "the left of center" (Engvar);
  • should the crew complement be added to the body of the article?
  • I wonder if some context could be added to this: "covered the pre-dreadnought Rostislav while she bombarded Trebizond on the morning of 17 November 1914". For instance, why were they bombarding the place? It probably wouldn't need much, maybe just a brief clause that mentions the outbreak of World War I.
  • was this done to support the landings at Gallipoli: "On 25 April Tri Sviatitelia and Rostislav repeated their bombardment of the Bosporus forts". If so, perhaps a link could be added;
  • in the References, are there page numbers that could be added for the Smigielski chapter in the Roberts work?
  • as above for Zebroski in Bell and Elleman?
  • inconsistent presentation, "In Roberts, John" v. "In Christopher M. Bell and Bruce A. Elleman";
  • inconsistent: "Annapolis: Naval Institute Press" v. "Annapolis, Marlyand: Naval Institute Press";
  • "File:Knyaz'Potemkin-Tavricheskiy1905-Q81552.jpg": are we sure about the UK Govt licence here. The description says "Novosti Press Agency", which doesn't sound like a UK Govt entity. Perhaps it just needs a US-1923 tag, given that it was published in 1905? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2013 (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/Russian_battleship_Potemkin&oldid=1075714226"