Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Knyaz Suvorov

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.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Russian battleship Knyaz Suvorov

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Knyaz Suvorov was the flagship of the Second Pacific Squadron which was sent to the Far East during the Russo-Japanese War to replace the ships that had been sunk by the Japanese. After an epic journey halfway around the world, the ship and two of her sisters were sunk during the Battle of Tsushima in May 1905 off the Korean coast. I'd like for reviewers to look for the usual suspects in preparation for an eventual FAC. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

As always I claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

after her completion to break the Japanese blockade of Port Arthur Pipe Japanese to the Empire of Japan.
Strange that the lwl of the ships isn't in the infobox?
- I often don't put the waterline length in the infobox unless it's the only measurement that I have.
The speed isn't the same in both the infobox and the body?
- The designed speed is given in both. I didn't use her builder's trials speed because that was usually different than her service trials' speed. In this case Knyaz Suvorov didn't have time to run the latter trials.
General-Admiral of the Imperial Russian Navy No need for an hyphen.
- That's how it's given in my source
of Nosy Be off the north-west coast of French Madagascar British north-west.
Shortly afterwards, Rozhestvensky was knocked unconscious by a splinter British afterwards.
- Not identified as BritEng in my dictionary.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day CPA-5, are you happy with the responses here? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot I find anything else so I'll give it a support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Some refs have state or country (sometimes abbreviated, sometimes not) and others don't - I'd standardize one way or the other
I wonder if you ought to include the original publication year for Corbett?
Does the Taras book in further reading have an ISBN/OCLC?
- Added

Parsecboy (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

Placeholder. I'll wait till the above are addressed before dipping my oar in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

minor rounding issue with the infobox o/a length
displacement doesn't match
the deck plan caption should probably state that Slava was a sister
rounding for the power
perhaps state that the secondary guns were on each broadside (assuming I'm reading the deck plan right)
a sentence explaining that the Russo-Japanese War was underway when she was sailed for Port Arthur is needed
some sort of lead up sentence for the Battle of Tsushima is needed, along with the date
what was the name of the flotilla leader?
- Unavailable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
drop the comma from "the Russian destroyer Buinyi,"

That's all I could find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the images are all appropriately licensed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, Jason - nice work. I have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

referencing looks good - all information appears to be cited and works appear to be reliable
there are no duplicate links or dab links (no action required)
ext links all work (no action required)
slightly inconsistent: "Pleshkov" v. "Pleshakov"
program "for the needs of the Far East" of concentrating ten --> " program "for the needs of the Far East" to concentrate ten..."?
928 crewmen during the Battle of Tsushima: suggest linking the battle here
the infobox says displacement was 14,151 long tons, but the body seems to say 14,415
consisted of four 12-inch (305 mm) Pattern 1895 guns were mounted: appears to be missing a word
set sail for Port Arthur from Libau along with the other vessels of the squadron: suggest maybe mentioning the war they were being sent to here
Rozhestvensky had received numerous: not sure if he has been introduced in the body at this point
- His mention in the lede should be enough
  - G'day, my concern with that approach is that the lead then includes information not referenced in the body -- i.e. that Rozhestvensky was commander of the 2nd Pacific Squadron. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - See if my rewording works.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that works for me. Regards, 09:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
another image to break up the service section would be great if it existed (suggestion only)
During the Battle of Tsushima, Knyaz Suvorov was the lead ship: date for the battle?
the helmsman being killed is mentioned in the lead, but I wasn't sure that it was mentioned in the body
- Good catch, thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
slightly inconsistent: "Second Pacific Squadron" or "2nd Pacific Squadron"? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

"..during the Battle of Tsushima on 27 May 1905. During the battle.." Can we avoid the repetition of "during the battle"? (Especially as the text goes on to use the word battle again seven words later.)
"..other than the 20 wounded officers evacuated by a destroyer, there were no survivors." I think this would work better without "the".
"The battleships also fired upon and damaged the cruisers Aurora and Dmitrii Donskoi." It might be worth clarifying in the text that this was a friendly-fire incident.
"..and caused the ship make nearly a full circle.." Missing a word.
- Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Shortly afterwards, Rozhestvensky was knocked unconscious by a splinter in the skull and flames made the conning tower.." Add a comma after skull, or possibly even split this into two sentences, as they are unrelated facts.
"..was down by the bow with a heavy list to port and was a mass of thick gray smoke from forecastle to mainmast." What does "down by the bow" mean? The latter end of the sentence could do with some work too: the ship was not literally a miss of thick gray smoke, so maybe "was covered by thick gray smoke" or similar?
In the introduction to this review, you include some nice context not in the article: that it was sent to "replace the ships that had been sunk by the Japanese", and that "two of her sisters were sunk" during the battle. I think a short aftermath for the battle would be worth including in the article too, just a sentence or two about how decisive the Japanese victory was, and perhaps the fact that (from the battle's article) "The destruction of the Russian navy caused a bitter reaction from the Russian public, which induced a peace treaty in September 1905 without any further battles."
- I think that that'd be venturing a bit outside of the article's remit. I think that it ends very strongly with Corbett's epitaph.

I take your point. I guess my concern here is that reading this article, the impression you get of the battle is that the Japanese fleet just laid into the Knyaz Suvorov, leaving me, the reader, wondering what the other Russian ships were doing, and why they weren't able to come to her aid. Reading the article on the battle, Oslyabya looks like she was sunk first; maybe a short sentence about the Japanese dominating the battle, tying up the other ships? It might also be good for clairty (even though the article is short) to split the battle into it's own section, with a {{main|Battle of Tsushima}} link, as done in Russian battleship Oslyabya. Harrias ^talk 09:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment's led me to expand the coverage of the beginning of the battle, which I hope has clarified things. I should have done this earlier; let me know how well it works.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that has definitely helped to provide some context. Personally, I'd probably still add a bit more, but I'm happy enough with what is there now. Harrias ^talk 06:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing major here, a good piece of work. Harrias ^talk 14:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Harrias, if you could look over these responses, I reckon this is ready for promotion. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

"File:Czar Nicholas II aboard battleship.jpg" Could we have a page or plate number for the Source please?
As both photographs appear to be Russian works, they require tagging as out of copyright in Russia, if in fact they are.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.