Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rivadavia-class battleship/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 Karanacs 03:39, 4 September 2010 [1].

Rivadavia class battleship

Rivadavia class battleship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s):  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC), Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rivadavia class did almost nothing but show the flag during their actual careers, but that isn't the interesting part (thankfully); it's what happened before they were commissioned.

First, the competition to simply build the two ships was fiercer than a lion defending her cubs. Famous shipbuilders from five major countries vied for it, and each country's government did as much as they could to assist. Eventually a dark horse, the United States' Fore River, managed to overcome a stunning amount of obstacles to win the contracts, which engendered scathing criticism from Britain and Germany. You would think this was enough drama, right? Read on.

While the ships were being built, the First World War flared up in Europe. Suddenly everyone—especially Britain and Germany—wanted to make sure that the Rivadavias went to Argentina rather than an enemy... which conflicted with Argentina's sudden desire to sell both ships.

Really intriguing story, albeit a muddled and confusing one. Hope you enjoy your read-through; as always, any and all comments are welcomed and encouraged. The article just passed a Milhist A-class review.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just got Ed's email offering me a co-nom ... I'm going to grab it for one of these 3 articles (Moreno, Rivadavia, and the class article), might as well be this one. I bought two sources, got one ILL, and have generally checked the article against the sources and done some of the writing. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The introductory sentence is clumsy.
Current: "The Rivadavia class was a two-ship group of battleships (Spanish: acorazados) etc..."
Suggested: "(The) Rivadavia was a class of battleship (Spanish: acorazados), numbering two ships, etc...."
This change gets around the awkward doubling-up of "class" and "group" which mean similar but not the same things. It avoids having to link "group" to "Ship class" (which is a most specific thing, and not just a group. The word "class" can now be linked to "Ship class" which merely qualifies what type of class.
"two-ship group" is undtidy and inadequate. "numbering two ships" is better.
NOTE: consequent change of number from "group of battleships" to singular "class of battleship".
Include "The" or not, as deemed appropriate.
Amandajm (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. No one says "The Iowa" (etc.) meaning "The group of 6 ships in the Iowa class"; it would be way too easy to confuse that with the Iowa. We don't usually use "group" though, it wouldn't bother me to use wording that we use in our other "class" articles. - Dank (push to talk) 11:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to respond here. Using your suggestion would indicate to readers that they are reading ARA Rivadavia, which isn't right. I could use the word "series" (cf 1, 2), or I could omit it all together (cf 3). Would that satisfy you? I agree that it is an awkward sentence construction, but I've never really thought about it before.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording that I've come to use for class articles is like this: The Océan class ironclads were a group of three wooden-hulled, armored frigates... It repeats the exact title of the article which is essential. The close conjunction of class, which should be linked, with group, isn't great, but unavoidable, I think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is "Minas Geraes-class battleships" (note the hyphen) used? If this is correct, presumably the title of this article should also have a hyphen. Ucucha 11:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SHIPS#Featured articles and search for "class". None of our FAs hyphenate this. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never understood that myself, actually. I was always told that "Minas Geraes-class battleships" gets the hyphen, but no one ever told me why article titles don't use it.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm always up for a hyphen discussion. Main point: maintain low expectations for standardization and sense-making. Last year's AP Stylebook, p. 359: "Use of the hyphen is far from standardized. It is optional in most cases, a matter of taste, judgment and style sense. But the fewer hyphens the better; use them only when not using them causes confusion." Tony1 prefers no hyphen for these even in running text (last I saw at WT:MOS), and I expect "Minas Geraes-class battleships" is liable to be misread as some kind of modified "Geraes-class". There's an ongoing discussion at WT:TITLE over our policy (not guideline) on italics in article titles; let's see how that turns out, because italics would affect the hyphen, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no strong preference for either solution, but I see no reason why this article should use "Rivadavia class battleship" but "Minas Geraes-class battleships"; overall consistency may be too much to ask, but internal consistency within this article would be desirable. Ucucha 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy either way, Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked Maralia (talk · contribs) to comment, as she (if memory serves) was the one who explained all of that to me.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm concerned all of the class articles should have hyphens as they're all compound adjectives, which should be hyphenated, with few exceptions. But I rather like hyphens; I'm rather odd that way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support after a thorough A-class assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rivadavia class battleship, per usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link, Dank. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ♯♭ 16:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Striking support; just got Ed's email offering a co-nom. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Did some ces but "New Zealand's Evening Post was more analytical in its approach to the issue." seem's to overstep into editorial statement as teh only ref is the article itself; it appears to be placed as Wikipedia's endorsement of the punditry being more sensible; It may be but probably not for us to say that. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 04:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thanks for that (and the support). - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "analytical" as "delved into the facts and avoided yellow journalism". Is there any better way to word it? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "analytical"; see how that works, YM. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
Who is Seward W. Livermore? With him being a red-link, it would be nice to know who he is...is he a scholar, a naval Admiral, etc? We're left with no idea.
"Historian" wouldn't be inaccurate, but Ed has the book. I added "historian" but feel free to make it more specific if you like, Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite a British attempt to allow the Armstrong Whitworth-Vickers team to lower their price by $570,000," Argentine Pesos and US Dollars use the same symbol. Accordingly this article shouldn't be using an unmodified/unlinked "$". (Note I picked one example of the problem here)
Should we link any ambiguous term or symbol every time it occurs in every article for the benefit of the people who don't read top to bottom? If so, we'll need to change WP:Linking, which recommends linking sparsely. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but each use should be US$. Being an Argentine topic, I would expect the bare $ sign to refer to the Peso. Courcelles 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood; MOSNUM is ambiguous, and either requires this or prohibits it depending on how you read it :) I've asked at WT:MOSNUM#Currencies. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just got an answer at WT:MOSNUM#Currencies in line with what I was expecting. MOSNUM seems not to allow what you want, but I can add a note, see if that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I tend to agree with Courcelles here, but yay for style guides. I'm fine with the note, although it could benefit from increased visibility if it was moved into the infobox... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yay for style guides, but MOSNUM is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get, I have to check the page every few months and ask when I have questions. If we were talking about a word rather than a symbol, the general principle would be WP:UE, which is actually policy. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...Argentina alleged to the United States' State Department that... " Perhaps use the full name, United States Department of State to avoid that awkward 'States' State'?
Agreed, done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The two ships of the Rivadavia class were 594 feet 9 inches (181.28 m) overall and 585 feet (178 m) between perpendiculars." What is this? I'm 99% sure it is length.
If you click on the links provided, you can raise that to 100%. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same paragraph, is there a reason why the tons are written as 30,000 but the enlisted men as 1000 without the comma?
See WP:MOSNUM#Delimiting (grouping of digits). - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 23; location? Evening Post is highly ambiguous.

Courcelles 07:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As usual, I don't agree with much of MOSNUM, or the (on-wiki or real-life) primacy of the U.S. Dollar, but what else is new? Nothing left wrong with this article. Courcelles 20:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite happy yet with the prose.

  1. Can't quite see the point of linking "seeking bids".
    Because we have an article on the subject? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "the United States' Fore River"—could we avoid the ungainly possessive? Either just remove the apostrophe or "the American company Fore River". Then we get United States' again in the next sentence ...
    Reworded Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "This move shocked the European bidders, especially in Britain" ... European bidders were resident in Britain at the time?
    Removed Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Do we subject a battleship to rumours?
    The battleships' fate was subjected to rumors... I've changed it to "of". Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is there a reason that "struck" has a Wiktionary link?
    When a ship is removed from a naval register, it is "struck" or "stricken" from it. I highly doubt that a common layman would know that, hence the link. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Check that, the link was wrong (Wikt has page titles in upper- and lower-case, apparently). See wikt:stricken. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "Rivadavia was scrapped in Italy beginning in 1959"—so it took years? Can't you say, for example, in 1959 and 1960?
    Ship breaking takes a long time even today, and the sources I've used don't say when it was completed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Why is Sao Paulo piped to "soaring demand"????
    There was a coffee boom in Brazil around that time, which allowed for the funding of the two dreadnoughts. It's eggy, but that's the way we did it in a previous FAC (Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Any reason "Scientific American" should be mentioned inline, when there's a ref tag a few mm to the right?
    To qualify it. Quoting it without saying who said it would make it seem like the article was promoting they were the best battleships. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "American government"; normally "US administration" (or president's name administration), isn't it? Or "Washington's".
    Shortened to "American" Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Can you write "million" to avoid 18 zeros in that sentence?
    No, because I want to keep consistency through all the large numbers, ie including 10,000 and ones I wouldn't write out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "Still" is a bit informal here: "Still, since Europe was the traditional arms supplier"
    Copyedited here, but it may be more convoluted now... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "quick American diplomacy"—prompt?
    Good suggestion, added Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Suddenly a sterling conversion ... why? "Italy's tender was just $48,600 (£10,000) more".
    Whoops, I was putting all of them into notes, but I missed one. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Try to shield readers from bad English in sources, here apparently in translation from the Spanish: the body which chose the final design, said: "The reason why the United States' tender was lower than the English is that steel for construction work and armor-plating is a great deal cheaper in the United States than in England." So, do this: the body that chose the final design said the reason the American tender was lower than that of the English was that "steel for construction work and armor-plating is a great deal cheaper in the United States than in England".
    Reworded using that, thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Biles quote: why start with ellipsis dots? The lower-case "i" says it, yes? After "government", put four unspaced points: "government....".
    I was always told in my college classes to start it off with an ellipsis if I was quoting from the middle of a sentence. I can change it if you would like; it's not a big deal. The four dots are done—thanks, I wasn't sure how to format it when I was copying in the quote. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. "They also made note of"--> "They referred to"
  17. "much cheaper than that of Britain's"—nope.
    Both addressed, the second before I came back and saw your comment. ;-) Poor word choices. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Why is "US$" linked? And MOSNUM says $ alone, unless there's some doubt. Who'd have suspected NZ dollars?
    There was something above about $ being the symbol for the Argentine peso, but we decided to take out the US$ anyway. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

etc. Tony (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs unfamiliar eyes to run through the whole thing. Tony (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Some great pics, but why so small? I boosted one from the default 220 to 240, but up to 260 would be fine for a few if they have the res. Do you really like left-siders? Also, if you have the latitude, consider placing higher rather than lower in each section (avoids white space bottom of sections in really wide windows). Tony (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate left side images. :-) I placed some lower in sections to space them out, as the sections aren't equal in length. I just increased the size of some of the images as well. Thanks for the comments, Tony; they're much appreciated! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support assuming I have not done so already, and it doesn't look like I have. Interesting article, I enjoyed reading it. I did have one question though: in the section discussing reaction to the awarding of the battleships to the United States you have the line "The Times took a different tack...", but I can not help but wonder if tack was supposed to be track. Otherwise it all looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • which paid for a massive 1904 $31,250,000 - "massive" is usually used for something physical, and appears colloquial here. Another word would likely be better.
  • came as an abrupt shock to the Argentine and Chilean navies - they weren't really a shock to the navies themselves, were they? And what is meant by "abrupt shock"? This should be re-worded to indicate more clearly that the strength of these ships vastly exceeded those in the Argentinian and Chilean navies, or perhaps that their strength shocked the navy commands or hierarchies - or both.
  • The cabinet was in favor - Which cabinet? The government at the time should be described here in a couple of words.
  • "the most up-to-date practice[s]", "a general machinery overhaul" - these quotations should probably be paraphrased, or cited if the sources are significant.
  • While both Schenia and Livermore explicitly state that the commission threw out all the bids twice,[14][20] neither makes it clear when this occurred. Livermore only goes into detail about one of these occasions, of which it is not clear if it is the second or third round.[19] - this kind of detail is valuable, it is essentially editorial comment by the article author, and is much better suited to a footnote than to the main article text. The main article should avoid discussing differences between the sources editors have chosen to use, particularly if this dispute is not itself discussed in reliable sources.
  • prompt American diplomacy granting various assurances regarding recent events between the United States and Brazil - the specifics of those "assurances" and "events" would be helpful in a footnote.
  • After Brazil sold Rio de Janeiro to the Ottoman Empire, Argentina began to actively seek a buyer for their two ships - you might want to give a bit more context here - e.g. why did Brazil sell the ship - and discuss the Argentine view that their own dreadnoughts were therefore no longer required.
  • destroyers had to be sent from Argentina to escort them home, as the Second World War had broken out during their stay. - this is unclear, why would destroyers have to be sent to escort them home? They were powerful dreadnoughts in their own right.
  • In general, have you considered using Wikipedia's inflation function to provides values in today's dollars?
    • SHIPS people generally don't, but I don't know why. I'll leave a note on User:Protonk's talk page asking about the relative merit of the figures used, he's an economist. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Inflation}} would give accurate conversions for this year, as the US has especially good price data (or good extrapolations) ranging pretty far back. Other countries (Russia & Italy come to mind) would not be conducive to a smooth conversion from an arbitrary point in the past to the present day and SHIPS articles outside US/UK/DE would have to convert using alternate sources. My guess is that SHIPS uses measuringworth.com in order to standardize references and presentation across their articles. On the subject of measuringworth.com, the website is supported by the Economic History Association, a serious scholarly association with a strong governing board, a few conferences, and a good (though not great) journal. I happen to be a member of the association (though not one of any consequence). They don't provide too many calculators outside of the US and the UK (China, Japan and exchange rates are included). One advantage measuringworth provides is a transparent conversion scheme. All (almost all) of their conversion pages have a short paper explaining the methodology and data sources--helpful background for a curious or adversarial reader/editor. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As all prices are given in (then-current) $US, wouldn't the inflation function work for all of them? Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Protonk. I don't have a preference, Jay; if we use a static figure, we could always run a bot to update the figures in future years. I have some reservations about using a template that works for some countries but not others, but I'll use it if there's consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the US (and especially the UK, as the inflation template simply pulls figures from measuringworth) the two are identical, with the only difference being auto-updating. Since the updating is yearly, I am inclined to view the choice between the two as a matter of preference and presentation. Since I suspect that SHIPS (like MILHIST) places a premium on standard presentation, my guess would be that a source used by the majority of their articles would be preferred, but I don't know for certain in this case. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't mind using {{inflation}}, but I'm not a template guy; how do I get the current year to show up automatically in the text? (I wouldn't want to say "in current dollars", because the reader would logically assume that was "current" when I wrote it, not when they're reading it.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some of the more minor copyedits myself. Overall, a well-written and referenced article, and an interesting read. I'd like to see the issues above addressed. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2010 (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/Rivadavia-class_battleship/archive1&oldid=1138470093"