Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greek battleship Salamis/archive1

Add links
From 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2017 [1].

Greek battleship Salamis[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salamis was a Greek capital ship project that arose in the naval arms race between Greece and the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, shortly before the Balkan Wars that involved the two countries, and more importantly for this ship, World War I, since that war ensured the ship would not be completed. Salamis represented years of development work, arguments between elements of the naval command, machinations behind the back of the Greek Prime Minister, and ultimately, protracted contract disputes between the builder and the Greek government. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Battleship_Salamis.jpg: is this image original to that source, or does it provide attribution? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no credit given in the source - many of the photos in Conway's are credited as being part of the Conway Picture Library, but the illustrations like this one are not. Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added the three potential names. (None are specifically identified in the text, as Parsecboy said; they're just given a general attribution alongside the authors at the very beginning of the book.) Happy to email a screenshot if needed! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Ed, I hadn't thought to look for that. Parsecboy (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Nothing wrong with the sources, which are entirely appropriate and of the right quality. However, I find your choice of "Footnotes", "Endnotes" and "References" as headings a little odd. "Footnotes" and "Endnotes" esentially mean the same thing (I don't remember seeing "endnotes" used in this context before). The three elements would be bettter combined as subsections under a single level-2 heading, which I suggest should be "Notes and references", with level-3 subheadings: "Notes", "Citations" and "Sources". You don't have to adopt my proffered wordings, but they would be much better within a single main section.
  • The only format error I can find is a "p." missing in 22

No other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Brianboulton, thanks for the review! I fixed the pp. The sections were my choice, I believe; I've used them before. It's a division built on MOS:FNNR, with explanatory footnotes/citation endnotes/general references. Parsecboy, I wouldn't object if you wanted to edit the sections. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a critical issue, but I believe some thought should be given as to whether the present arrangement represents best practice. Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting I usually use is this. I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other. What are your thoughts, Brianboulton? Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:APPENDIX specifies Lvl 2 headers for things like notes and references with Lvl 3 headers used if you wish to distinguish between books and journal articles etc. Grouping footnotes, endnotes and references, with individual Lvl 3 headers, under a single Lvl 2 header as you'd prefer, Brianboulton, violates that, IMO. I'll also point out that the screenshot used to illustrate MOS:Appendix shows notes and references each with Lvl 2 headers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "(Greek: Σαλαμίς or Σαλαμινία)": WP:LEAD has been tightened up within the last year. Now it permits "a single foreign language equivalent name" in the lead sentence, so pick one or the other.
    • Trimmed the second one.
  • I don't follow "which contributed to her classification as a battlecruiser", since you're calling the ship a battleship, so I removed the related text from the lead. Give it another whack. - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a line in an earlier version of the article about how the ship has been called a battleship and a battlecruiser, but that fell out somewhere along the way - how does this strike you? Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the outbreak of World War I in August": I don't object to that, the case can be made for August, but is it consistent with our other WWI articles?
    • A good point - July is probably a better choice.
  • "The hull ... She": Is a hull a "she"? - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good question - changed that to "Salamis"
  • There was a passage in Development that seemed ambiguous to me; I tried "The Ottomans ordered the dreadnought Reşadiye in August 1911, threatening Greek control of the Aegean. The Greeks were faced with a choice of conceding the arms race, or ordering new capital ships of their own." Does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that seems fine to me.
  • "Still, the British had hopes of obtaining the contract after the number of British officers that had been seconded to the Greek Navy in recent years.": Seems ambiguous to me.
    • Is "Still, the British had hopes of obtaining the contract due to the relationship between the Greek and British navies, reflected by the number of British officers that had been seconded to the Greek Navy in recent years." clearer?
      • Sure.
  • "Hovering over all of these was the possibility that the dreadnoughts of the South American dreadnought race could be put up for sale." Hovering in what way? The connection should be mentioned first.
    • Would it work to add something along the lines of "...up for sale, a prospect both countries pursued."?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

Just a few comments from me:

  • "the invitation of a British naval mission" - to do what exactly?
    • A good point
  • suggest using the Ottoman names for the two pre-dreadnoughts bought from Germany
    • It seems to be more correct to me to use the German names in this context, but I've added a note on their Ottoman names
  • Armstrong's proposal was higher in what respect, cost?
    • Yes - something probably got lost in Ed and I rewriting that section a few times
  • link beam, draft and displacement
    • Good catch
  • where were the TT to be located?
    • I'll have to look again, but I don't recall Conway's or Greger saying.
  • suggest linking Cabinet (government) and dropping initial cap
    • Good idea
  • just check that you consistently use future tense when discussing any bits of the ship that weren't actually fitted, for example "and they were (to be) electrically operated." Mainly around the armament, turrets etc
    • Yeah, I wondered about that, since the turrets were fitted, just to other vessels. I could go either way on this - Ed, do you have an opinion? Parsecboy (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "soon shift to the Ottomans in the near future" is a bit redundant, ie soon and near future. Trim?
    • Good point
  • Are there ISSN's available for the journals?
    • Have added ISSNs for the two that were missing an identifier. For the record, the ISSN for Nausivios Chora doesn't work in Worldcat, but I got it directly from the journal - I've been told that Worldcat isn't exactly the best-curated site. Shrug.

Otherwise, looking good. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PM. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I was a part of the A-Class review, and find nothing further I would like to comment. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Excellent article, I've made one minor style change, I find it to be FA compliant. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2017 (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/Greek_battleship_Salamis/archive1&oldid=817822084"