Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rivadavia 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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 07:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rivadavia class battleship

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • majestic titan)
Toolbox
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • External links

The last article in a future FT. These ships saw five of the major world powers of the time—France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States—competing over the contracts to build them. Argentina used this hypercompetition to get what were probably the most advanced battleships in the world, but they were quickly eclipsed by more powerful and more numerous fleets of the major powers. Still, the intrigue during and even after their construction was surprisingly interesting to me; I hope it is to you as well. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportComments - Infobox needs conversions, currently its only in metric. More later... -MBK004 06:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, I haven't even touched the infobox yet. I'll fill it out and convert it tomorrow. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What else I would have brought up has already been, therefore I have switched to support. -MBK004 02:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • It would be good to link Bernardino Rivadavia and Francisco Moreno. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "revamped order" - the meaning of "order" is a bit unclear "order of battle" or "building program"? Same for "new order". Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded, I repeated essentially the same thing three times in that sentence... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her rivals" - may be too vague for the third sentence. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tendered bids" are commonly called "tenders" or "bids", the link is there for clarification. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bring the contracts back home". Check contract -> contracts in the sentence. "win the contract" may read more easily. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another great suggestion. It's "contracts" because Argentina was looking for two and possibly three ships. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hyper-competitive market" might be better as "hyper-competitive environment". Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest "During the course of the construction, the battleships were frequently the subject..." Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stricken on 1 February 1957" -> "Struck from navy lists on 1 February 1957" Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check double linking of call for bids in "were solicited in 1908 by open tender" Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I double link if it appeared in the lead—I'm not sure if this is unusual, but I skip lead paras most of the time when reading an article. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "38 different shipyards" -> 38 shipyards. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plans were received from a total of 38 different shipyards, 15 of these from five nations—the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, and Italy—bid for the battleships." is difficult to read. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The president of the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company believed that the United States would not receive contracts due to a large amount of European meddling in Argentina". Meddling reads as POV, despite it possibly being his interpretation. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check "diplomacy is are being made use of" Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this quote desirable at all? Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure—it seemed relevant when I added it. ;) If you don't think it is, swoop in and remove it. It's not integral. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Italy last." Third? Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sixth. Livermore doesn't go into who / what contracts on on the list aside from what I included... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "required specifications" -> "specifications" Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead implies that there were three rounds of tendering, the design section mentions two. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. I'm not sure what to do here, because while Scheina and Livermore both explicitly say Argentina threw out the bids twoice (making three rounds—opening tenders, second round, third round), Livermore doesn't identify what round he talks about...he only discusses one, but later says that the Argentina naval commission had gotten a better battleship by forcing the companies to revise their submissions twice (emphasis mine). See also note 5. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under armor, nickel steel is maraging steel and medium steel is a grade of carbon steel. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • no dab links, external links all work (no action required);
    • images could have alt text added, but this is not a requirement (suggestion only);
    • I think File:Rivadavia class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg needs a different licence - it seems to be relying on the death of the author, but says that the author is not identified;
    • I made a couple of minor tweaks for italics and full stops in the citations (please check you agree with these), otherwise it looks quite good to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to wait for everyone to decide whether alt text is necessary, and if it is, what form it should take, before doing it. :-)
      • Fixed Brassey's. Jappalang fixed a similar image's license in Minas Geraes' FAC, so I copied that over.
      • Your minor tweaks were spot on. Good catches. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: my concern has been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComments
    • You've got 14 inch (305mm) in the infobox; I know off the top of my head 305mm is 12 inches, so that needs to be fixed.
    • The cost figures are confusing; you have the British lowering their bids in US dollars, and the US bids figured in pounds. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Also, if possible, could you convert them so the reader isn't comparing apples to oranges?
      • Good point. How did I miss that before? Conway's gave it in pounds, Livermore gave it in dollars. I'll find a currency converter next time I'm online —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Started to, then quit, I should be able to finish this tomorrow —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • {{Inflation}} might come in handy here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Did not even see this reply until now. :-) I used Measuring Worth for all the conversions and linked to the site in footnote 1. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe specify that Bahia was a cruiser, as it appears now it looks like another battleship.
    • The service history section states that the ships were converted to oil-firing boilers, but later on it blames their inactivity during WWII partially on a lack of coal.
      • Removed. I'm not sure why I wrote that...thinking of WWI maybe? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The photo of Rivadavia's main gun and armor - do we have any proof that it's part of the Bain collection? If not, it'll need to go. You could probably just contact the LoC and ask. Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll send off an email tomorrow, I'm falling asleep here :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Email sent —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Anything yet on the photo? Maybe you should remove it (hopefully only temporarily) until you get a response, so it doesn't hold up the ACR from passing. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • See below, I replied in the wrong spot. :p It's not part of their collections, so I'm getting rid of it now. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There aren't as many as I'd hoped, but there are a few. I'll be uploading them as soon as I can. The main gun and armor photo is not part of their collection, though. Anyone have an pre-1990 Argentine naval photo album to satisfy commons:Template:PD-AR-Photo? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Group instead of series in the opening sentence?
  • The four-inch guns seems to have been mounted in casemates and in pivot mounts. Is this correct? And if so, did they have gun shields?
  • Translate the poundage of the deck armor into thickness. 40 lbs per inch of thickness is the ratio.
  • I consolidated a bunch of the conversions in the Propulsion section for you.
    • I also didn't remember that {convert} can do that. Boy, you're just an expert with that template, eh? :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise looks good, despite a lack of info on their service careers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of sounding like another editor, there isn't much on their careers. Early on, service was frequently interrupted by stints in reserve because of economic recessions. Later on (this is speculation, but probably accurate) they were used as status symbols while the more cost-efficient cruisers did the real work (and WWII patrolling). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Comment on a comment: best I can tell, "stricken from the register" and "struck from the register" are both fine. "naval vessel stricken register" (without quotes) gets about twice as many relevant ghits as ""naval vessel struck register". - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the "buisness" inside a quotation to [business]; the brackets should come off if it was just a typo. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How similar is the "Navy Board of Inspection" of that era to the current Board of Inspection and Survey? If it's much the same thing, then I suggest a wikilink. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The remainder of the 1920s along with the 1930s was filled with more training ...": suggestions anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe "The ship's crew conducted training cruises through the remainder of the 1920s and the 1930s." Always best to use active voice if possible or at least my wife tells me, when she proof-reads for me ;) Parsecboy (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Used your wording, although I added "diplomatic" as well. You have an in-house proofreader? So that's your secret. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer. Just finished a second copyedit; comments welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Is there a way to combine "Rivadavia and Moreno participated in training exercises, diplomatic cruises, and stints ..." with "The ship's crew conducted training and diplomatic cruises ..." just 3 sentences later? - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks good on the first quick read I gave so far. Good job Ed and all. WikiProject Argentina -- Alexf(talk) 22:24, 28 July 2010 (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/Rivadavia_class_battleship&oldid=1136064629"