This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
"This could, had a shell struck it, completely..." there's a missing "have" in there - might be easier to simply reword it to "could have completely...protection, had a shell struck it."
Reworded.
"compelling the imperial authorities to intervene" - who, the Romanovs or the Qing? Presumably the former, but it's not clear to me.
"Russians responded with sending..." - should probably be "responded by"
I wonder about some of the links - For instance, the link to
Vietnam piped as "Vietnamese harbor" doesn't seem particularly helpful (or in accordance with
WP:EASTEREGG). Also, the boiler tube link at the end of the "Last voyage" section links to
water-tube boiler, while the description section says the ship had fire-tube boilers.
Some admirals have their first names listed, while others only have their last names - please add first names to those missing them (for example, Admiral Dubasov in the Far East section)
The article mentions that the shoddy work on the internal decks contributed to her loss at Tsushima, but that is not explained (or even mentioned) in the section on the battle. Can you add something specific on the effects of the poor interior structure on the flooding caused by battle damage?
Unfortunately, no. And since I neither read Russian and nor have Bogdanov, I've deleted the reference to battle damage at Tsushima--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Most of the images are sourced to a 2004 publication - how are these either PD in Russia (necessary for hosting on Commons) and PD in the US? As far as I can tell, the only images that are not potentially problematic are the two linedrawings, since they're duplicates of the original plans.
Didn't even think to look, though I should have known considering how often this sort of thing comes up with Russian warships. All purged and replaced by a postcard that I found on the net that meets the licensing requirements for Commons. Pity, some beautiful photos.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply
It is a shame - that's one of the nice things about the Italian ships, since their photos are by definition PD in Italy and the US.
Parsecboy (
talk)
18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The joys of rewriting articles written by non-native speakers! Only one more to go, though, before the Russsian BBs will be done, other than the damn list. Thanks for the review.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
17:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Yup, it's fun, and good luck with the list. There's a reason I've left
this one unfinished for the past several months. Eventually I'll get to it, but it's not a priority, you know?
Parsecboy (
talk)
18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Damn, I was hoping to inveigle somebody to help/do all of the upcoming lists that I need to finish for the Cup. Guess the Tom Saywer thing doesn't work so well in real life, eh?--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
19:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
"This could, had a shell struck it, completely..." there's a missing "have" in there - might be easier to simply reword it to "could have completely...protection, had a shell struck it."
Reworded.
"compelling the imperial authorities to intervene" - who, the Romanovs or the Qing? Presumably the former, but it's not clear to me.
"Russians responded with sending..." - should probably be "responded by"
I wonder about some of the links - For instance, the link to
Vietnam piped as "Vietnamese harbor" doesn't seem particularly helpful (or in accordance with
WP:EASTEREGG). Also, the boiler tube link at the end of the "Last voyage" section links to
water-tube boiler, while the description section says the ship had fire-tube boilers.
Some admirals have their first names listed, while others only have their last names - please add first names to those missing them (for example, Admiral Dubasov in the Far East section)
The article mentions that the shoddy work on the internal decks contributed to her loss at Tsushima, but that is not explained (or even mentioned) in the section on the battle. Can you add something specific on the effects of the poor interior structure on the flooding caused by battle damage?
Unfortunately, no. And since I neither read Russian and nor have Bogdanov, I've deleted the reference to battle damage at Tsushima--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Most of the images are sourced to a 2004 publication - how are these either PD in Russia (necessary for hosting on Commons) and PD in the US? As far as I can tell, the only images that are not potentially problematic are the two linedrawings, since they're duplicates of the original plans.
Didn't even think to look, though I should have known considering how often this sort of thing comes up with Russian warships. All purged and replaced by a postcard that I found on the net that meets the licensing requirements for Commons. Pity, some beautiful photos.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply
It is a shame - that's one of the nice things about the Italian ships, since their photos are by definition PD in Italy and the US.
Parsecboy (
talk)
18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The joys of rewriting articles written by non-native speakers! Only one more to go, though, before the Russsian BBs will be done, other than the damn list. Thanks for the review.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
17:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Yup, it's fun, and good luck with the list. There's a reason I've left
this one unfinished for the past several months. Eventually I'll get to it, but it's not a priority, you know?
Parsecboy (
talk)
18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Damn, I was hoping to inveigle somebody to help/do all of the upcoming lists that I need to finish for the Cup. Guess the Tom Saywer thing doesn't work so well in real life, eh?--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
19:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)reply