Talk:Argentine–Chilean naval arms race/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review--very interesting topic. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting any issues here that I can't immediately fix, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial readthrough[edit]

On first pass, this looks extremely solid: well written, well sourced, and quite interesting to boot. Only a few quibbles:

"The Chilean government purchased a protected cruiser, Blanco Encalada, off the stocks in 1892," -- what does it mean to buy a cruiser "off the stocks"? I assume this is a technical term with which I'm just not familiar. Perhaps an explanatory footnote could be added, or a quick explanation given in text?
- It's complicated to explain. Basically, in those days, private shipyards would lay ships down to one of their own designs in the hope that a country in turmoil, like Argentina and Chile were, would buy it "off the stocks" or while it was under construction. Any ideas on how to succinctly phrase that in the article? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. How about adding a Template:efn with text like "In nautical terms, buying a ship "off the stocks" refers to buying an already-built ship from the stocks of a private shipyard." On a related subject, what does it mean to buy a ship "on the stocks", like the Venticinco de Mayo was?-- Khazar2 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - They're interchangeable, but I'll make that consistent in this article. "On" seems to be the prevalent use in reliable sources. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Germans uses the word Spekulationsbau, means something like "Built for speculation trade" [1] --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"he notes that the small time lapse" -- consider rewording "notes" per WP:WTA
- "Notes" isn't in WTA. ;-) I'm not saying that it's a "notable" thing (WP:WTA#Editorializing), just that the author "notes" that the small time lapse could lend itself to alternate interpretations. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The warning about "note" is buried in the middle of WP:SAY. Looking at it again, this isn't an instance that particularly concerns me, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scheina, Grant -- consider giving minor context when first introducing authors ("Historian Jane Scheina", "Author Dwight Grant", etc.)
- Ah, good call. Fixed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"just around the corner" -- slightly informal/idiomatic; consider rewording per WP:WTA
- Again, good call. Fixed with wording that is way better even if it wasn't idiomatic. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and the Chilean president and foreign minister." -- it seems worth naming and linking the specific president involved here.
- Linked Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" leaving the de facto state of war they were in" -- It doesn't sound like any shots were fired, which is what I would think of as a de facto war; I'm a bit skeptical of this phrase.
- Agreed -- fixed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the footnoting appears to be by paragraph rather than sentence, which gets confusing when a paragraph draws on multiple sources. I don't think this is a big deal for GA, but if you're considering taking this to A-class or FA, it would be good to be more specific about what source and page some of these facts (particularly numerical figures) are coming from.
- Typically I will do by sentence, but if a paragraph is fully taken from two or more sources (ie most of the sentences depend on both sources), I'll do it by paragraph. Thanks though, I'll keep it in mind when I spruce it up (not sure if I'll go to ACR or FAC yet; I'd need to find more sources) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All this looks good. Some small points above could still be addressed, but I'd say this article is ready to pass as a Good Article. Since we've given this unusually quick turnaround between nomination, review, and response, I'd like to wait another 48 hours before passing it just to make sure that anyone else watching this article has had a chance to chime in, give a last check, etc. Unless anyone speaks up, though, I think this is good to go. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just moved this into the mainspace, so I don't think there are many watchers, but I'm not in any hurry. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass.

Comments[edit]

Hi Ed,

I read your work and found it very well. I want to collaborate with following:

By the beginning of the 1880s, the Chilean government possessed possibly the strongest navy in the Americas ...

It should be said in the sentence that at this moment Chile was in war against Peru and Bolivia. This is a good argumennt to have a strong navy

Two battleships, Los Andes and La Plata, were ordered from Laird Brothers ...

Los Andes and La Plata weren't Battleships. They were fluvial monitors. See es.Wk

An Argentine warship did the same to a Chilean-licensed American ship in 1877

I never heard of it. Can you give some reference?

Each government was distracted in the next few years

I am not sure of my English, but I think the word distracted distracts the attention from the facts. They were very interested in the questions regarding beyond the Cordillera: the "Conquest of the Desert" was done during the "War of the Pacific" and because the Chileans were at war against Peru und Bolivia. 1873 the Argentine Senat authorized the President to sign the Secret Treaty of Peru and Bolivia against Chile. I would prefer the former wording Both countries were incapable of enforcing these claims with a seaborne force ...

1) one battleship, two protected cruisers, and two [Chilean] torpedo gunboats... 2) ... two [Chilean] torpedo boats from the United Kingdom ..., 3) ...along with four [Chilean] torpedo boats;..., 4) ...and six [Chilean] torpedo boats...

We should count on both sides or no one of them

1) a large order for rifles, field guns, sabers, and carbines, enough to arm an 80,000-strong [Chilean] army ... 2) Chile, it was forced to take out a £2 million pound loan in order to purchase Krupp weaponry ...,

We should count on both sides or no one of them

The article could contains also data about the construction of the Marine Yards in Argentina and Chile. As soon as possible I will contribute with some figures. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]