Talk:Greek battleship Salamis

Milhist assessment

Almost B-class. PKKloeppel (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A possible source to track down

Mariner's Mirror, vol. 45. Parsecboy (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Battleships of World War I: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Battleships of All Nations, 1914-1918 - might actually have that in the library. Need to check. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Need to get The Mediterranean naval situation, 1908-1914. Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: I own that last one and can go through it for you, if that helps. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that'd be great. I'm trying to beat this article into FA shape, as you might be able to tell. Parsecboy (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I did suspect. ;-) Will try to do this weekend. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Ran across part of a paragraph here that doesn't seem to gel with Fotakis. "Competition for the contract was significant; ten British, four French, three German, three American, one Austrian, and two Italian shipyards all submitted proposals." – Halpern says on p. 324 that "The represntatives of European and American shipbuilding and arament firms were drawn to Athens like the proverbial bees to honey. Nine of the French yards formed a consortium to seek naval orders abroad ... [the consortium's president] thought that this association would facilitate the efforts of the French minister in Athens on behalf of French industry since he would no longer have to hold a balance amoung competing French firms."

Otherwise, I've added pretty much all of what Halpern has. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your additions - I'd say they're enough to get you co-credit if you're interested in running it with me.

Fotakis mentioned the French consortium - curiously in very similar wording! On the number of firms, I wonder if it's the difference between "firm" and "shipyard" - FCM had two yards, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, happy to pitch in during the ACR/FAC.

Yeah, and if WP is any judge, there aren't that many big French shipbuilding firms. I've put Halpern back on the shelf, but I do remember a reference to Ateliers et Chantiers de Penhoët the shipyard... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again - I think I'm happy with it enough to put it up for ACR. I doubt the Preston book will have much if anything at all that isn't already in the article, so it's not that big of a deal to go ahead without it. On the other hand, OSU has a copy of the book, so I might make a certain someone pick it up for me - not like ACR is going quickly these days. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt Preston has much of anything unique to bring to the table. Couple other tidbits from searching tonight:

• Jane's from 1915 would have the ship renamed to George I, though I haven't seen that anywhere else.
• The design photo from 1913 might be kind of useless? Do you think it's an accurate representation of the initial design? He seems to be conflating the early and later designs. (The length and beam correspond to the first design, while the armament (...mostly), armor, and displacement correspond to the final design.) I wanted to include the "The large armament ..." paragraph as a quote in the article, but now I'm not so sure.
• Same year, useful for any of your other articles?
• Seems ... large for a program... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Later Proceedings from 1914 isn't very helpful.

• Preston does mention that the ship was originally named Vasilefs Giorgios. The only other thing of note is he seems to be confused about the secondary battery.
• Conway's All the World's Battleships uses a similar line drawing (and credits it as the original 1912 design) so it's probably reasonably accurate, but yeah, I think the author is conflating the two designs. I'd be hesitant to include the quote, given that he seems to be somewhat confused. Thanks for doing this digging, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, interesting, so perhaps it was only the author getting mixed up between the new specs and the old drawing? Fun to speculate about. Anyway, a couple more things. Friedman's probably the only useful one, if at all.

• Friedman talks about the British designs. (And British designs for South American dreadnoughts [score!])
• More detail on the Bethlehem shops. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• That Friedman book is already used in the article :P
• The second one is interesting, though I don't really know where (if at all) to incorporate it. I wonder if it would be more useful in the Bethlehem Steel article? Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)