Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Peresvet-class battleship

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 Nikkimaria (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Peresvet-class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Peresvet-class battleship/archive1

The three Russian Peresvet-class battleships were designed to support their armored cruisers in a commerce raiding war if war broke out with the British in the late 19th century. They were optimized for high speed and endurance to this end rather than heavy armor and armament, but the situation was vastly different in the war that they actually fought against the Japanese in 1904–05. The two ships that reached the Far East before war began fought creditably in the two major fleet actions with the Imperial Japanese Navy and were ultimately sunk in harbor. The third ship was part of the Baltic Fleet that was destroyed at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 and was the first ship sunk during the battle. The other two ship were salvaged and placed into service by the Japanese after the war. One was sold back to the Russians in 1916 and sank after hitting mines in the Mediterranean while the other participated in the Battle of Tsingtao in 1914. She was probably scrapped around 1923. I've recently overhauled the article and believe it meets the A-class criteria. As usual, I'd like reviewers to look for examples of unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose in preparation for a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

" The Peresvet class had five 15-inch (381 mm) torpedo tubes, three above water, one in the bow and one pair of broadside tubes, and two broadside underwater tubes.": I'm not sure I follow.
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by PM

all toolchecks are ok (except alt text which isn't an ACR requirement)
broadside is overlinked
1898–03 in the infobox should be 1898–1903 per WP:DATERANGE
there are rounding differences between the body and infobox for beam
the first figures in the displacement range in the body and infobox don't match
the kW conversions in the body and text don't match
there is no conversion of the 6-inch guns in the body, but there is in the infobox
- Converted on first use, which is earlier in the description.
suggest reversing the conversion on the 37 mm, 47 mm and 75 mm guns in the body and infobox for consistency with the larger guns and torpedo tubes, which are inches first with conversion in mm. Given the armor thicknesses are consistently inches first, it seems incongruous
- Those guns were bought from France and the Russians retained the metric designations.
0.75-inch isn't converted
- Umm, look earlier in the para
the 51 mm low range for the deck armor in the infobox isn't clearly established from the body
Battle of the Yellow Sea should be linked
- Look in the lede.
Battle of Tsingtao is linked in the lead but not when mentioned in the body
- Generally only one link per article, excluding the infobox, except for very long articles.
the standard note explaining caliber would be a useful addition
- The link for caliber suffices, IMO.

Comprehensive article, in very good shape, just needs some tweaks. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very thorough review; catching all those discrepancies was great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: just a couple of minor nitpicks from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"File:Peresvet Brassey's.png": needs a US licence - I'd probably go with PD-US-1923
"File:Peresviet Port Arthur LOC 3f06353u.jpg": probably needs publication details - these can be found here: [1]
"gun turrets and their support tubes, which were made from Krupp armor" --> "gun turrets and their support tubes, which were fitted with Krupp armor"?
- I'm really not seeing any problems with the wording here.
  - To my ear at least, " which were made from Krupp armor" implies that the whole item was made of Krupp armour, as opposed to "which were fitted with Krupp armor" which implies that the armour was attached to the item which was made from something else. I don't know which is correct as I'm strictly a land-based animal, but the first instance doesn't seem quite right to me. I could be wrong, though, of course. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I thought that I'd replied already, sorry for the delay. The turrets and their support tubes were made from armor plating, although I'm sure some structural members were ordinary steel, unlike belt armor which was generally layered over the ordinary steel of the hull.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"reclassified as 1st-class" --> "reclassified as first-class" (for consistency with "the second-class battleships")
otherwise I believe this article meets the A-class criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this is the last of the four articles on these ships, of which all the others are already FA, I didn't even think to check the copyright status of the photos not used in the other articles. So thanks very much for thinking to look at them and I adopted one of your suggestions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - couple of minor points though:
- "... These guns had serious development..." consider instead "... These guns had major development..." (minor nitpick, suggestion only)
  - It's a good nitpick.
- "...The guns were designed to fire once every 40 seconds, but in service they fired at half that rate..." I wonder if an explanation for why this proved to be the case should be provided? (suggestion only)
  - I wish I could tell the reader; I've never been able figure exactly why they had such a slow rate of fire
- Some minor inconsistency in presentation, consider "2nd Pacific Squadron" vs " Second Pacific Squadron". (action req'd)
  - Done.
- "The mines had been laid by the submarine SM U-73...", perhaps mention that it was a German submarine for context? (suggestion only)
  - Good idea.
- Article easily meets the A class criteria regardless of these points. Anotherclown (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2015 (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.