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 -- Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}

• Featured article candidates/Almirante Latorre-class battleship/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

The class article for the interesting story that is Chile's dreadnoughts. Both were taken over by the UK, one was returned to Chile in 1920, while the other was kept by the UK and converted into an aircraft carrier. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments
  • The section on Almirante Cochrane/Eagle states that the ship was refitted from Oct. 1941 to February 1942, then goes on to say that the ship was torpedoed and sunk in Oct. 1941. The ship article states she was sunk in August 1942. What's going on here?
  • The specifications section seems to be rather light for the class article. Any chance of beefing it up a little more (like Rivadavia)?
  • The quote about Von der Tann needs a citation.
• That's all for now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates - wow, I screwed up big there, not sure how it happened. Fixed now.
  • Specs - I only have the basic Conway's for a major source. Rivadavia's entry had a lot on technical info... this one, not so much.
  • Quote - citation added. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good now - and there's only so much you can do when the information isn't there. Parsecboy (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Firstly, the infobox contains bullet points, and we reached a consensus some time ago at Wikiships that this should not be done. Secondly, the "Specifications" section comes last. This section usually comes before the "Service history" section. Gatoclass (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, that was my oversight (it was carried over from Almirante Latorre's original infobox). I know how class articles are normally organized, but I'm trying to keep the story's flow intact. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would placing the Specs section above the "Service history" section interrupt the flow? It seems to me the natural place to put it - right after the launch and construction details, where it usually goes. It looks very odd being tacked on the end. Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a read through of the article in that part. It goes directly from launching -> buying by British. I know it's a bit odd (to me too; I normally put it right after the construction/launch section), but I believe splitting it would be worse. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but I still see no reason why the specs section can't be in the same place as it is for every other ship article on the encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments I don't have a problem with the placement of the Specifications section. We've been having a problem getting people to look at ship articles at FAC, and part of the problem may be that they fall asleep before they can finish the first section, which comes across as too technical and obscure to many FAC reviewers. It's true that these sections are usually near the top, and it's a reasonable request to be consistent, but it's also a reasonable request to allow for some experimentation to see if we can get a better response from reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose such a change at Wikiships, you are entitled to do so, but you can be sure of my opposition. When I read an article about something, obviously I want a description of what that something is before I start reading about its history, that is the obvious sequence. If I don't know what it is I'm reading about in the first place, how can I hope to understand anything else about it? I'm sure there are some people who don't like the spec sections but they probably don't like warship articles much to begin with. Gatoclass (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to oppose what SHIPS wants, I'm trying to support what this editor wants; it's not an outrageous request. If this means you're opposing A-class promotion, please say so; I only have time to copyedit the A-class articles that have no current opposition. - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no explicit style guide that dictates where it has to be, and I don't see much difference between the middle and end of the article. Also, FWIW, I hate specification sections but love warships. I don't really care about the specs aside from 'which battleship is more powerful', normally measured by gun size (for right or wrong, that's how they did it). What interests me is the geo-political debates that developed as countries acquired dreadnoughts. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a thought: we get friction sometimes over the wording of the first sentence of class articles. This one begins: "The Almirante Latorre class was originally a two-ship group ...". If people object again, I think this will work: "There were originally two ships in the Almirante Latorre class ... designed as super-dreadnought battleships ... Almirante Latorre was finished as a battleship, but Almirante Cochrane was converted to an aircraft carrier." - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Interesting thought, but I don't like it as much because it doesn't immediately identify the subject of the article. Is there a way we could reword it while keeping "The Almirante Latorre class ..."? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you've got seems fine to me, this is just a suggestion in case you need it later on. - Dank (push to talk) 00:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking at this again, "built" still doesn't work for me. [The two-ship group of battleships was] "built by the British Armstrong Whitworth for the Chilean Navy. Only one, Almirante Latorre, was finished as a battleship ...". Generally "a battleship was built" means you get a battleship, not something else. Also, I believe acorazados means "battleships", but it's not clear from context whether it means that or "super-dreadnought battleships". - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "which was much more advanced than her sister": which was closer to completion than her sister - Dank (push to talk)
• "Post-war, she was put": "Postwar" is an adjective, not an adverb, per Websters NWD, and there's no hyphen. "After the war, she was put" - Dank (push to talk)
• "The battleship instigated a 1931 naval mutiny": The crew of the battleship ... - Dank (push to talk)
• "She was scrapped only in 1959.": She was not scrapped until 1959. Also, you need a paragraph break here. (The narrative jumps to a different ship at a different time.) - Dank (push to talk)
• "military operations against natives": It's not easy but it's important to keep up to date on currently approved synonyms for "indigenous"; they tend to vary by country and by decade. "Natives" is probably not the best choice; "the native population" or "the indigenous population" would be better. I don't know the best choice, if there is one. - Dank (push to talk)
• "The genesis of the Almirante Latorre class was in the conflicting": It's perfectly okay to have a topic sentence that's a bit metaphorical, as long as it gives the reader a perspective that makes the paragraph easier to digest, and as long as the meaning of the topic sentence becomes clear by the time the reader finishes the paragraph. This topic sentence wouldn't be my choice, since the reader doesn't know by the end of the paragraph how the conflicts led to the creation of the class. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Chile designated £3,129,500 in 1887 to add to its fleet": Chile added £3,129,500 in 1887 to its fleet budget - Dank (push to talk)
• "A battleship, Capitán Prat, two protected cruisers, and two torpedo boats": The battleship Capitán Prat, two protected cruisers, and two torpedo boats (nonparallel elements in a list) - Dank (push to talk)
• More to come. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "even after the 1891 civil war": even after Chile's civil war in 1891 (Argentina is mentioned before and after.) - Dank (push to talk)
• "in 1890–91": in 1890 and 1891 - Dank (push to talk)
• "Chile one in 1892, Argentina purchased": Chile ordered one in 1892, Argentina purchased (nonparallel elements in a list) - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "The two countries alternated cruiser orders: ... Each of these marked a small increase in capabilities from the ship previous.": probably "The two countries alternated orders for increasingly expensive cruisers:". I'm hoping "increase in capabilities" translates to more expensive. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Chile was forced to respond by": Chile responded by. Countries do what they want to do, generally; they often claim that they had no choice, but the claim generally isn't credible. - Dank (push to talk)
• "the American ambassador to Argentina William Paine Lord in 1899": the American ambassador to Argentina, William Paine Lord, in 1899. Appositives are often set off by commas, names especially. - Dank (push to talk)
• "letters of intent with Ansaldo": letters of intent with Italian engineering company Ansaldo (otherwise the readers have to click to know what you're talking about) - Dank (push to talk)
• "The growing dispute concerned the British" "concerned" in the sense of "was relevant to" or "disturbed"? - Dank (push to talk)
• "an eighteen-month advance notice": probably "18 months' advance notice", although there's an argument for "eighteen" - Dank (push to talk)
• "demilitarized": Add link to demilitarization. - Dank (push to talk)
• Okay I'm trying to limit my copyediting time to roughly an hour; take a whack at this, then I'll probably support just the parts I was able to cover (the intro and first subsection). - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Dank and apologies for my delay in replying. I fixed all but your alternating comment, as I'm not completely sure they were more expensive – just that each was more powerful than the last. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Now supporting the parts I covered. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support
  • should ninteenth and twentieth centuries be 19th and 20th centuries respectively per WP:CENTURY?;
  • These sentences are problematic for me: "The crew of the battleship instigated a 1931 naval mutiny, and was kept on patrol during the Second World War. She was not scrapped until 1959." Firstly you are covering nearly tens years in a single sentence which seems to imply causality (i.e. one caused the other), while you might just consider saying "She was scrapped in 1959". Currently it almost sounds like a double negative to me;
  • The phrase "a 1931 naval mutiny" doesn't work for me, may be reword to something like "instigated a naval mutiny in 1931";
  • 'arms race' could be wikilinked;
  • Similiar to my comment for ARA Rivadavia, the reference style seems a little inconsistent. One example is your use of brackets for years in some and not others. Personnally use of a citation template would eliminate such problems but as I said above its up to you. For instance:
    • (NO BRACKETS) Hore, Peter. Battleships of World War I. London: Southwater, 2007. ISBN 1844763773. OCLC 77797289. vs
    • (BRACKETS) Kaldis, William Peter. "Background for Conflict: Greece, Turkey, and the Aegean Islands, 1912–1914." The Journal of Modern History 51, no. 2 (1979), D1119–D1146. JSTOR 1881125. ISSN 0022-2801. OCLC 62219150.
  • Otherwise another excellent article with little to fault it. Anotherclown (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your review! Regarding centuries, no, see WP:ORDINAL
      • Indeed it would seem that either is acceptable. Anotherclown (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reworked those sentences.
      • They look good now. Anotherclown (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to "naval mutiny in 1931"
    • Linked.
    • The article is an academic citation style. Please see "Chicago-Style Citation Quick Guide." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not disputing that you're using an academic style, I am merely questioning the inconsistency in the use of brackets around the year in your references. Per my example above in some places you do it and in others you do not. IMO whatever style you choose to use should be consistent (unless of course that is the Chigaco style in which case I withdraw the remark). Thats all I'm getting at. Anotherclown (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, that came across sounding angered, which I am certainly not! Look at the link I gave – whatever their reasons, that is Chicago format. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No worries then. Anotherclown (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: looks generally fine to me, just a couple of minor quibbles:
  • Citations # 12, 16 and 18 appear to be the same and should be consolidated with a WP:NAMEDREFS (as it has been done already with some others);
  • Citations # 17 and 18 appear to be the same (as per above);
  • Citations # 55 and 57 appear to be the same (as per above). AustralianRupert (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for looking at this, AR. All are now fixed! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries at all. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. 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.