Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sovetsky Soyuz-class battleship

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Promoted --Ranger Steve (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... it recently passed GAR and I believe that it meets the A-class criteria. If there are infelicities in my writing please take the effort to point them out as I don't find comments to do a general copyedit particularly useful. Keep in mind that I'm aiming this at FAC afterwards.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • No problems reported with dab links or alt text. One external link is reported as suspicious please check and advise.
      • It's good.
    • Can we get two paragraphs in the intro please? Two (or three or more than that) helps to promote the professionalism of the article, IMO.
      • I think the best thing to do is to add some stuff about the prolonged development history and maybe expand the bit about the construction difficulties. However, I'm not sure how to add the development stuff because it all flows rather nicely now. I suppose I could add a separate paragraph after the one, but that would disrupt the chronological progression. Any suggestions?
    • The armor section does not note if the battleships were to employ the all or nothing armor scheme. Can you find anything to this effect? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really think so, based on what I little I know about it, but McLaughlin didn't note it specifically.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This article is in excellent shape, but I think that it needs a little more work to reach A class:
    • The introduction is a bit short
      • See my comments above. Do you have any concrete suggestions as to what I should do to expand it?
    • The 'Design and development' section should start with providing some context about the Soviet Navy at the time work began on planning for these ships and why it was decided to try to build such ambitious vessels
      • Done
    • The sentence "A revised design was approved on 28 February 1938 and the first ship was to be laid down on 15 July, but even this was incomplete and would be revised later." is unclear - was the ship or the design incomplete and revised? Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments are now addressed. I think that more background on the state of the Soviet Navy and rationale for these ships should be added before it goes to a FAC through. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that there's really that much to tell about the decision itself. The Soviet Navy was in bad shape and had only completed 3 half-built Tsarist cruisers and several of the Project 2 escort ships since the end of the Civil War 15 years earlier. The Kirov-class cruisers were under construction, with Italian help, but most of the capital ship design and construction expertise was lost and had to be relearned on the fly. And nobody seemed to make provision for time to design and build the guns and machinery. The former often took longer than the actual design and construction of the rest of the ship. Similarly the Tsarist knowledge base for thick armor plates, large guns and precision machinery had largely fled the country. And the Communist emphasis on quotas over quality further compounded their problems. I'll have to reread McLaughlin about the actual decision to build these puppies, but it basically appears to be something like: "Hey the kid next door has some cool toys, I better get some myself" Stalin and the Navy wanted something to counter the German ships and trivial matters like a decayed industrial base thwart their desires.
  • Comment:
    • the format of the References section is a little inconsistent. # 1 provides the full bibliographic details, but the others use short citation style (for consistency I'd suggest making Reference # 1 "Westwood, p. 202" and moving the full details to the Bibliography section. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first citation is the only citation for that reference. Solo citations are always given in full, only multiple citations are given in the short format with full info in the bibliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I believe that this article meets the criteria. I couldn't find any issues to pick fault with. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • Without going into a detailed review of the article just yet, I'm going to make a concrete suggestion for expanding the lead. First off, to me it's good as it stands because it gives a succinct, logical history of the class in one fell swoop, and I don't want to spoil that flow. However, I agree with Nick and Tom that more detail, in say two paras, is appropriate for A-Class. I think you could split the current para before "One ship, Sovetsky Belorussiya...", and then commence a second para going into a bit of detail on design, characteristics, and construction (maybe just a sentence apiece for those three aspects, the last perhaps mentioning at least the first ship in the class that was built) before finishing (still in the second para) with "One ship, Sovetsky Belorussiya..." and after. See how you go...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I've adopted Ian's suggestion of splitting the lead, although I ended up going in a slightly different direction. How does it work now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm happy with the new second para, my only remaining suggestion for the lead would be (as mentioned earlier) to briefly mention construction history in the third para, at least the first ship, as a) the third para's pretty minscule and b) the bit on the cancelled ship kind of pops out of nowhere, for me at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completed review to the end; apart from what I changed in a quick copyedit I think it reads well, is detailed and properly cited, and appropriately illustrated with a fair-use design view. So well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I moved one sentence out of the first paragraph to lead off the third paragraph since it deals with construction issues. However, I'm not sure if it works properly in conjunction with the earlier sentence on the armor plate manufacturing issues. What do y'all think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for ACR Comment This looks like good coverage (comprehensive) of the subject. Everything I wanted to know about soviet battleships (which wasn't a lot to start with, but now I've been instructed). I found no lapses of explanation, etc., but the prose could use a good copy edit—it's got a lot of Sturmvogelisms—before you take it to FA. I'll volunteer for that assignment, if you'd like. That would be sometime in the next 10 days. I'm trying to get finish a dissertation chapter. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogelisms?–<snicker>. My dear, are you saying that I have, ahem, a "distinctive" voice? I do believe that you're flattering me! A good copyedit would be appreciated or you can just point them out for me to fix. Either way would be fine; I just don't want to exceed the allotted time for this ACR which is in a week or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure. I'll give it a go later, after I get some of my dissertation done, but I see nothing that should prevent ACR at this point. I'll leave some stuff on the talk page for you. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "possibly chosen as being as large a violation as they thought they could get away with, with an armament of nine 406-millimeter": who's making that interpretation, and why? - Dank (push to talk) 22:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's McLaughlin, presumably because he doesn't know why the ship's size changed yet again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he had some evidence or he was repeating some kind of accepted wisdom, that can be fine with the right attribution. If he's speculating, you'll be better off at FAC without that part. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted.
  • "experimental basin": I'm not sure what that means. Only 1 other Wikipedia article has the phrase, and a gsearch isn't pulling up anything consistent enough for me to get a handle on it. If it's not important, we could leave it out. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it ship model basin.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that works.
  • "splinter deck": a lot of battleship articles use that and "splinter belt" but I can't find any of them that define it. From Garzke & Dulin and Friedman, my sense is that the splinter deck was generally a much thinner deck (from roughly 0.6 to 2 inches thick) designed to protect most of the crew from shards of bombs or shells or debris from the ship. What's the best way to communicate this to the reader? Should we link to a stub on splinter deck, create an entry at Wiktionary, or give a quick description whenever we use the phrase? - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the text to cover its function, see how it reads. At some point we're going to have to start articles on these sorts of things, but my excuse is that I'm waiting to rescue the rest of my library from storage before I start elaborating them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trials with the motor launches": motor launches? I don't see how those would provide accurate information on the proposed ship's speed. Are we talking about a larger hull plus motors here? - Dank (push to talk) 11:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, these were essentially motor boats with the ship's hull form. Used because the smaller models can have problems with scaling effects. The article references a specific British class of military motor boats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "trim" can mean "the fore-and-aft angle of the vessel to the water" (wikt:trim) and "ballast" (in Dynamic trimming, "optimize trim at all times") and something like "total drag" (first sentence of Dynamic trimming). Which of those is meant by these two occurrences of the word here? "After the weights were calculated the ship showed a substantial trim by the stern; the two 100 mm turrets mounted on the quarterdeck were deleted and the height of the armor belt abreast the rear turret was lowered in a effort to reduce the trim." - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is another term that needs a separate article as most everything listed above applies to one degree or another. In this case the wikt definition is the one meant here as there was too much weight towards the stern. This is bad because it increases overall drag, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what "The hull form was very full" means ... full of something? wide? - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think full-bodied; that's probably a better term anyways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any synonym of "oversized" would work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "after end" be "aft end"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, after is a preposition. Aft is an adjective.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite following this: "...or with three torpedo hits and the unarmored above-water side destroyed." - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really not sure how to rephrase this. The ship was supposed to remain afloat after suffering, case 1) the destruction of the above-water, unarmored side of the ship plus three torpedo hits, or, case 2) five adjacent compartments were flooded. Should I move around some of the clauses? --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting which side of the ship we're talking about, but if it's clear to other reviewers, I'm fine with the language. - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the Soviet leadership preferred to ignore the industrial difficulties when making their plans." I'm not disputing that, but you don't support that broad conclusion; that would be a separate article. (You could attribute it to someone, maybe.) Maybe something like: "... appeared to ignore the difficulties encountered in the construction of the Kirov class when ordering 14 much more ambitious ships." - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Support. An excellent article. It would be nice if there were more pictures, however, I understand that there are likely none available. – Joe N 22:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Sovetsky_Soyuz-class_battleship&oldid=1138359665"