Talk:Brazilian battleship São Paulo/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
~~Lead, P1: I'd break this paragraph into two, right before the sentence beginning When Brazil entered…~~

~~Lead, current P1, S4: Is her used to refer to the country of Brazil? I'd expect an its instead.~~

~~Lead, current P2, S1: You need a unit conversion for knots here~~

Background, P1, S1: This sentence is not clear. What it's saying right now is that by merely entering the 20th century Brazil became the third largest naval power. It implies (to me at least) that Brazil had risen to third, rather than, what I suspect is meant, falling to third. Perhaps a better sentence to lead with would be At the beginning of the 20th century, Brazil had fallen to the third largest naval power, behind…

~~Background, P1, S2: This is a long sentence that should be split in half.~~

~~Background, P1, current S2: When talking about the size of the warships, it's better to be more precise and say "3,000 t displacement". There are other places in the article where this applies, also.~~

Background, P2, S1: "turn of the century" is an ambiguous phrase. Also, it seems strange to begin a paragraph with however. It might read a little better if you inserted the however after the first clause of the sentence: At the turn of the 20th century, however, soaring demand…

~~Background, P2, S2: "Government" shouldn't be capitalized here, and I'm not sure about "Building Programme" either.~~
Much better. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Background, P2, S4: This sentence really needs to be split into two or more sentences.~~

Background, P3, S3: Plans are redrawn; specifications or contracts are rewritten

~~Background, P3, S4: This sentence reads as if the spec was to carry a certain number of guns at a specified speed~~

~~Background, P4: This seems lifted out of Minas Geraes with little adaptation. Had other countries laid down dreadnoughts between Minas Geraes and São Paulo?~~

I seriously doubt it—São Paulo was laid down 13 days after Minas Geraes. :-) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that is pretty unlikely then. The edits made tie this paragraph in to São Paulo much better. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Early career, P1: Paragraph should be split, probably before the 5th sentence~~

~~Early career, P1, S3: begins with to began her career…. This is a sentence fragment~~

~~Early career, P1, S4: Long sentence that needs to be split.~~

~~Early career, current P1, current S6: Another long sentence that needs to be split. Also, was the discrimination against black crewmen or, as currently suggested by the wording, by blacks?~~

~~Early career, current P2, S2: Long sentence that needs to be split.~~

1920s, P1, S1: I don't like the fact that as a reader you have to seek out the note to find which turrets are being talked about. Since there's not been any discussion of turret arrangements or turret names at all (no Armament section?), I'd say just put …São Paulo was outiftted with [technical stuff] in two of her turrets.

~~1920s, P1, S3: There sre a couple of customary units in this sentence that should have conversions. There are several others in the article that need conversion as well.~~

1920s, P1, S4: I fail to see the relevance of this sentence. No offense to the happy couple or their descendants, but why are we supposed to care?

I was attempting to show that the crew didn't just sit on the ship during that time, but I didn't do that very well, eh? Could this be reworded to reflect this intention, or should I just remove it? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Did the wedding occur in New York? The inclusion of the Puerto Rico part, I think muddies the point. Add a lead in to the sentence to help convey that: While the shipyard workers were busy on improvements to São Paulo, members of her crew were also gettin' busy (if you know what I mean). Wait. Maybe not that… While the shipyard workers were busy on improvements to São Paulo, members of her crew worked on their own improvements; Lieutenant Freire, São Paulo's second-in-command, married a Miss Rosich in New York after a whirlwind romance.

1920s, P2: Probably should be split. Going from a carrying royalty to a celebration to suppressing a revolution is a big jump. You could probably append the Belgian royalty part onto the previous paragraph.

~~1920s, current P3, S1: I know I have a tendency to do this myself, but it's best to avoid anthropomorphizing the ship: It was crewmen on São Paulo that rebelled, not the ship itself.~~

1920s, current P3, S4: It's not completely clear the cook was on Minas Geraes

~~Late career, P2, S1: Don't assume the reader will know the signifcance of the 1914–18 date range. It's better to spell out something like As in the First World War…~~

~~Late career, P3, S2: Spell out Rio de Janeiro: Rio is a little too colloquial~~

Late career, P3: Anything in sources about the lengthy period between the departure and the disappearance? Also, does any source actually state that the ship was sunk (even if they don't know/say where it sank)? Right now it sort of suggests that São Paulo is still. out there. somewhere…

Maybe the ship still is. :P And no, no sources that I have seen have stated anything more; presumably there is something out there—it's not often that a battleship sinks! However, I haven't been able to find anything, and I don't have access to anything that could say more, like newspapers... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~Background, P3, S2: You need to have a source to attribute the "would have been obsolete" statement~~

One has been added. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
a lot of recent, but constructive, activity
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

There are a lot of prose issues that need to be addressed and one referencing issue that need to be addressed before this can be promoted to GA. It's a lot, but I suspect there won't be any problem completing these within the seven-day hold period.

While reviewing the article, I found some things that should be addressed before this article is nominated for higher assessments (A-Class, FA)

I'd recommend some version of design/armament/armour sections to give better specifications (if known, of course), like thickness of the types of armor (belt, deck, etc.), turret arrangements, secondary battery arrangements, dimensions of the ship as built (other than in the infobox)
- Isn't that what the class article is for? I've never had sections like those in my other battleship articles before, but I am open to change :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - By that same logic, the "Background" section in this article (which I think is a good level of detail for this article) could be eliminated since it's covered (or should be) in the class article, too. I think some coverage of armament, armor, etc., is warranted, but I would leave most of the details to a class article (and link with a {{Main|Minas Geraes class battleship}}. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend a thorough copyedit, focusing on a more encyclopedic tone. There are some rather colloquial phrases (like the Rio for Rio de Janeiro example mentioned above).

— Bellhalla (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The changes made address the biggest concerns I had, so I'm passing the article. Good job and good luck with A-Class and/or FAC. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]