Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

Nominator(s): White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because after spending several weeks working on it in my sandbox. I recently moved it it the main space. Having asked for an assessment, the list was initially given start-class designation as I needed more citations in the lead. I've corrected that and cited the whole list and User:Woody (The one who reviewed the list for the B-class criteria) now says that he sees no outstanding issues with the list and encouraged me to send it to ACR. So here I am again! I've done this before with the List of battleships of Austria-Hungary and have modeled this list off of that of the Austro-Hungarian and German ones. Any comments wold be appreciated! Thanks :)White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
    • Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe hazegray.org meets the requirements to be a reliable source, so all of the citations to this will have to be replaced.
    • The Brandenburg class section has too much information on the ships' German service and should be cut down.
      • Buggie has cut down on the section a but. If there needs to be more trimming, feel free to let me know.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's the purpose of noting that the ships served in China and 1901? It sort of comes out of nowhere, and isn't directly connected with the sale of the ships in 1910. Also, I suspect that OSN isn't the source for that information. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There needs to be more information on Yavuz after the end of the war - it essentially goes from 1918 to being scrapped in '73.
    • Why are the photos being forced to 200px?
      • IDK, but what is wrong with doing so. Buggie111 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I know, the general standard is to leave them as thumbs, which allows editors to view them as they have set their preferences (I have mine set at the maximum of 300px). You should really only force them to be larger if it's a small image (like a map or something) that would be hard to see at a smaller size. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead image has to go - no proof that the author died more than 70 years ago (or its status as PD can be verified in some other way, such as the date of publication in Germany).
    • The article needs to be read through - you've got a number of typos I noticed on just a quick glance ("BRazilian", "Reshas-I-Hammiss" instead of "Reshad-I-Hammiss", etc.)
  • That's all for now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple more little things: the citations to Conway's 1860 should mention all three editors, not just Gardiner (or otherwise remove the other two from the full citation). It's a little confusing to have Fatih's displacement in the box, along with the note saying her exact displacement is unknown - it might be better to leave the box empty with just the note. The closing coord can count me in support once these two minor issues are addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the issue with Fatih. As for Conway's, look at the citations! There is one set that mentions all three, (1860) another set that mentions two authors (another Conway book) and there is one Conway book that only has Gardiner.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 03:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • It needs some copyediting, and some additional info on Yavuz would also be welcome, as Parsecboy noted.
    • The original lead image was certainly published in late 1914 or early 1915 at the latest, because it directly refers to the Ottoman Empire's entry into the war ("Die Türkei schlägt los" means "Turkey hits out"), so it should be PD (at the very least, PD-US-1923-abroad).
    • I am surprised that the chief source on the contemporary Ottoman navy, the Ottoman Steam Navy has not been used at all. This led to at least one notable mistake in the article, for the Ottomans were certainly not engaged in any naval antagonism with Italy or Austria-Hungary in 1913-14. I would feel much more confident in supporting promotion if such a specialized source were used. Constantine ✍ 14:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Technical stuff
    • No dab links or broken external links.
    • All but one image are missing alt text. Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment
    • This is a very worthwhile article and looks pretty good IMO, with a decent lead, consistent detail for each class of ship, and thorough sourcing; however I'd like to see all outstanding comments above acknowledged/actioned before supporting.
      • Everything is fixed in the above comments other than the addition of that book. I'm currently working on a solution to that as well.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What of Parsec's question re. the lead image? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Replaced with a photo of the Goeben.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 13:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, that should satisfy things, though I wonder if it might be better swapping that with the one of Goeben arriving in the Bosporus as the latter is 'busier' and therefore looks better as a big leading image, while the shot of Goeben on its own is okay as a thumb in the body of the article. Just a thought, doesn't affect my support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took the liberty of copyediting for prose/grammar, let me know if I've inadvertently altered the meaning of anything.
    • I assume the citation "Gardiner and Gray" refers to Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860—1905 but the Bibliography section only mentions Gardiner as editor -- should be consistent.
    • Also for consistency, Johnston should appear in the Bibliography section and be cited in short form. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Cite 12 is incorrect. Page 16 of Ottoman Steam Navy does not reference the ex-German battleships in any way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at page 16...the whole page. I'll go back and take another look though :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Until I am able to get a copy of the book again, I have removed the citations Strum.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. So now what's the supporting cite for their service in China, etc? You'll need to remove all that unless you can support that statement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added page 66 from Hore. Hope this is good. Is there anything else that you need addressed?--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose only per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyedits look fine to me thanks :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support w/ comments:

  • "...so the Ottoman Navy Foundation was established with the aim of purchasing new ships through public donations rather than having them built locally." → What does "public donation" have to do with where they were built? Do you mean constructed by foreigners, or you mean that the ships were financed through donations? Later, you elucidate that it means the latter, but that still leaves the issue that the two parts of the sentence are unrelated to each other. So, instead of "rather" it might be better to use something like "while". JonCatalán(Talk) 19:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were financed through public donations ;)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this ACR winding down?--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:33, 8 October 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/List_of_battleships_of_the_Ottoman_Empire&oldid=1136064653"