Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ironclad warships of the Ottoman Empire/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of ironclad warships of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

List of ironclad warships of the Ottoman Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of the ironclad warships built for and by the Ottoman Empire in the 1860s-1880s; these ships had largely uninteresting careers as a result of Ottoman indifference to naval affairs, though some of them saw action during the various wars fought during this period. One, Mesudiye, survived long enough in active service to be sunk during World War I at the ripe old age of 40 (quite ancient for ships of the era). The list also includes ships that were either cancelled before completion or purchased by other countries. The list serves as the capstone for this good topic. Thanks for all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  1. An appropriate image in the WP:LEAD would be nice (perhaps the naval ensign of the Ottoman Navy?).
    That seems purely decorative to me - there aren't many good photos of these ships, and the lead image I had previously used doesn't have clear copyright status, unfortunately.
    It's mostly visual appeal I'm thinking about, yes. It would be nice, but it's not necessary. TompaDompa (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The use of unit conversions is not consistent throughout. On a related note, not all units are preceded by a non-breaking space ( ).
    Figures are converted on the first use and not thereafter - this is pretty standard practice. As for non-breaking spaces, the point of those is to prevent digits and units from being bifurcated by the end of the line of a page - that's not an issue in tables, so I don't use them if they weren't copied over from another list.
    This of course varies with screen (and window) width, but I see multiple armor thicknesses broken up over two lines. TompaDompa (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. in 1878 in the midst of a war scare with Russia – is there a relevant article for this? If so, it should be linked.
    The Brits thought they'd get pulled into the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, which is already linked.
  4. sank Feth-i Bülend in Thessaloniki – I feel like the word "harbour" should be in there somewhere.
    That seems redundant to me.
  5. top speed/horsepower generated should be rephrased per MOS:SLASH.
    Done
  6. The date the ship was commissioned – it should be clarified that this means the date it entered into active service, as opposed to the date its production was ordered (which is a definition of "commission" I suspect many readers will be more familiar with, and which still makes some sense in context). The reader shouldn't have to click the link to avoid misunderstanding this term.
    Tweaked.
  7. As the largest, and most valuable, members of the Ottoman fleet, the Osmaniye class was kept safely in the Mediterranean Sea during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, since the Ottoman command did not want to risk them in coastal operations in the Black Sea. should be rewritten in a way that doesn't result in a single sentence having four commas.
    Tweaked.
  8. Fatih, in Prussian service as König Wilhelm as originally built is a bit confusing and should be rephrased.
    The point was to make clear that the ship was in its original configuration, not this one
  9. She was involved in a collision with the ironclad Grosser Kurfürst in 1878, which saw the sinking of the latter vessel. – it should be clarified that this was an accidental collision between friendly vessels in peacetime.
    Added "accidental", but the rest seems to be unnecessary explanation - it should be safe to assume that, in the absence of a reference to a war or specific battle, it did not occur during one.
  10. The "Armament" cell for Fettah needs copyediting.
    Fixed
    14 × 203  Armstrong guns – I'm guessing that's 203 mm? TompaDompa (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. All the sections for vessels ordered by the Egyptian Eyalet should mention that they were turned over to the central government, in case the reader skips ahead to one of the sections.
    That seems awfully redundant.
  12. They displaced less than half the earlier vessel – I'd add "as much as" after "half" or rephrase it entirely.
    Done.
  13. Though they had one less gun – I'd use "fewer".
    Works for me.
  14. Avnillah, c. 1885 should use the {{circa}} template.
    Didn't know that existed
  15. A hexagonal casemate – maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing, but in the drawing it definitely looks octagonal to me.
    Good catch.
  16. were rapidly made obsolescent – "obsolescent" means "in the process of becoming obsolete" (i.e. not yet obsolete), which makes this phrasing a bit weird to me.
    Right - the ships didn't have much time in service before they were rendered obsolescent.
    Isn't that like saying "He fell ill and quickly became dying"? I don't know, to me it's an odd phrasing. TompaDompa (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The page uses both "Thessaloniki" and "Salonika". Stick to one of the two (I'd recommend the former, as that's what the article is called).
    Salonika would be the appropriate name for the period we're discussing - Thessaloniki wasn't formally used until after Greece retook the city in 1912.
  18. It should probably be mentioned that Hamidiye used the name originally planned for the ship that became HMS Superb.
    Does that really need to be spelled out?
  19. "Belleisle" is twice misspelled as "Bellisle".
    Fixed.
  20. For consistency with the other sections, the last table should note that the vessels were commissioned as HMS Belleisle and HMS Orion, respectively.
    Good point
  21. The linking to vessel articles in the tables is not consistent throughout.
    Only ships that were part of a class are linked in the tables, since individual ships are linked with the {{main}} link - doing them both seems like overkill.
  22. This might be a stupid question, but how are the sections ordered?
    Chronologically, as they're ordered in the Langensiepen & Güleryüz book
  23. There are two identical Sondhaus, p. 90 references.
    Fixed

TompaDompa (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going through all of this, it's good to have a fresh set of eyes on an obscure topic like this. Parsecboy (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it seems like I'm requesting overly much explanatory text, it's because I try to imagine how it would read to someone who sees this featured on the main page and decides to read it with little to no previous knowledge on the subject.TompaDompa (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I went ahead and made a couple of minor edits myself; what remains unresolved is merely stylistic preferences that I do not consider deal-breakers for WP:Featured list status. TompaDompa (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

  • you could tidy up the citation farm in the Osmaniye class table by just using fn 5 in the header for Service, the same goes for the other fields, this comment also applies to other tables
  • I'm not sure about the inclusion of Fatih, as she never entered Ottoman service
  • I'm not sure about the inclusion of Fettah as she was never built
  • Same for Hamidiye in the Mesudiye class
  • And also the Peyk-i Şeref class

I think there is a scope issue here. To me, vessels that never saw service with the Ottoman Navy shouldn't be listed here. Otherwise, this is looking good. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other reviewer here: I think you raise a valid point on the scope, but I also think that the list would not really be complete without those ships. Do you think it could be solved by reordering the list and adding sections for ships that weren't built and ships that never entered Ottoman service? TompaDompa (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought the same on including the other ships when I laid out the initial draft, but then I decided that the unfinished/sold off classes ought to be included, since they had at least been ordered by the Ottoman government. They're included in references like Conway's, and it's standard practice to include them in other similar lists (like List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire includes 3 ships that were cancelled and 2 that were seized by Britain and List of battlecruisers of Russia is almost entirely cancelled ships). Parsecboy (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they're included under the Ottoman section/chapter in Conway's, then I think we're fine doing it as well. Delete all reference to this query. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed (as much as it could be with all book sources); promoting. --PresN 16:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_list_candidates/List_of_ironclad_warships_of_the_Ottoman_Empire/archive1&oldid=865292527"