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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:38, 22 January 2011 [1].

Almirante Latorre-class battleship[edit]

Almirante Latorre-class battleship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say hello to another article in my South American battleship series! This one tells the tortured tale of two Chilean ships ordered during the South American dreadnought arms race of 1907–1914. However, when World War I broke out in 1914, they were taken over by the British. One (Almirante Latorre, or HMS Canada) was completed in 1915 and served in the war, while the other (Almirante Cochrane, or HMS Eagle) was mostly converted to an aircraft carrier, almost converted back to a battleship, then completed as an aircraft carrier. The former was sold back to Chile in 1920 and served into the 50s, instigating a major rebellion in 1931 along the way, while the carrier was kept by the British and eventually sunk in the Second World War. The article has passed a Milhist A-class review. I hope you enjoy the article; any and all comments on it are welcome. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments:
Infobox info. A number of the details don't correspond with what I can find in Breyer's Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World. Specifically Breyer gives design displacement 28,000 and 28,600 tons - this accords with the figure quoted in the text. The number of 6-in guns is also incorrect in the infobox (12; text, and Breyer, say 16). Finally Breyer gives the complement as 1167 or 1175 (depending on which ship).
The length figure in the infobox is the figure for waterline length (though this isn't made clear), while the text gives overall.
It should probably be mentioned that the secondary armament was in barbettes.
Style comments:
I think it needs to be clearer why the "Argentinian-Chilean boundary dispute" section is relevant to the ships. This material is fairly relevant, but the reader might be surprised to see the first sentence of the body of the article being about Patagonia in the 1840s. We don't start (say) HMS Dreadnought (1906) by talking about Trafalgar. Alternatively condense that history to a couple of sentences and start the story of these ships in 1904.
The prose is marginal for FA standards. I have gone through part rewriting a few clunky sentences. Will see if I can find tomorrow to do a little more.
There is a bit of US point of view in the 'Bidding and Construction' section as the US side of the story is quite heavily illustrated while the Chilean, British and German sides of the story aren't. Appreciate the sources are probably selective here but this still needs to be addressed a bit.
Look forward to supporting when these concerns are addressed The Land (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review!
That's odd. I didn't actually check the infobox when I copied it in. I'll fix it in my next online session. Complements always vary from book to book, no matter what ship is in question -- I'll just remove it.
In a previous version of the article, I started the Background section with "The genesis of the Almirante Latorre class ..." Would that help in making the section's relevance more clear?
I'm sure it would, but the more I look at the article the more I'm sure that a lengthy discussion of the history is out of place here. A shorter summary would probably be better. The Land (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The history of naval arms races between the two countries had a major impact on the Chilean decision to order dreadnoughts, and I don't have the resources to write a full-fledged article I could link too. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Livermore extensively covered the American interactions with the South American countries, but I don't have much on the other POVs (though I'm not sure the Germans ever made a serious offer). I'll see if I can alleviate this a bit with Scheina. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's 4am here, so the infobox is gonna have to wait for tomorrow after I get off work. I checked Schenia, and even he focuses on the futile American attempts to land the contract. I think he chose to focus on the US because that is where the story is – according to him, the contracts were already certainly going to the UK due to its extensive and long-lasting relationship with Chile. Scheina comments that "Favor such as Great Britain showed Chile found no parallel in the world's other important navies", while also remarking on the "strong ties" since 1839 (which were recently made stronger due to a 1911 British naval mission) and calling it a "special relationship." (Naval History, 138). I think I'll add something to that effect tomorrow, as I don't think I've been completely clear in communicating this idea in the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - but then the article needs to talk a bit more about the long-lasting relationship with Great Britain in this context, and perhaps be adorned with a few fewer quotes from Americans. Also any idea which British armoured cruisers were sent, or if there is anything to justify something about why the armoured cruisers were very unimpressive at the time? The Land (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do these edits satisfy our concerns? I don't think the article implies anything negative about the armored cruiser squadron, and the names of the ships in the squadron were not given, unfortunately. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're an improvement. I've made a further tweak - can you check it doesn't misrepresent the source. Would still prefer less detail on the history, but that's no bar to it being an FA in my oppintion.
  • Sorry for the delay, I've been back-and-forth between WikiCup needs and real life (I'm currently in San Francisco). In order:
  • I've been including the translation just in case readers would find that interesting – it doesn't serve much of a purpose, but I don't think it detracts from the article.
  • I think it should be taken out then, particularly given that this is the English-language Wikipedia. It's likely to cause confusion among some readers without any off setting benefits. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree... I think a single translation of a normal word will interest readers. How could it be confusing? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it appears in the location that readers expect to see foreign language translations of the name of the article's topic per WP:UEIA, so some readers might think that this class of battleships were called acorazados in Spanish-speaking countries. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I disagree, as I think the translation is far enough away from the subject of the sentence (the bold words). I've used this in all of my other FAs too without complaint... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed, nice catch
  • When writing the article, I thought I did... changed
  • That's poor summarizing by me. I've altered it to "She spent her wartime service with the Grand Fleet, seeing action in the Battle of Jutland." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1c/2c is good fine, a few clean ups JSTOR links are fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the detailed review! As you can tell, I'm amazed by the history here too. :-) I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. I'm not sure if dearming was the norm, but I have seen pictures (with unclear copyright status, unfortunately) that showed Latorre being towed to Japan with armament intact. I'd assume this is because there would be no ammunition on board to fire from the guns? I think disarming is the norm today, however. Regarding the funnel article, it never occurred to me to look for an old article, I just used the redirect. I think that stub should be restored. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the stub.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose

Kleopatra's comments

Moved for editing on adaptive device. --Kleopatra (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See footnote 2 for links to the men the ships were named after.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want a footnoted link. I want to read this in the article. This is a general encyclopedia, and who the ship is named after, and who the ship-class is named after are major general information, not a footnote. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are criticized much more often for duplicating information in the class article that people would reasonably expect to find in the ship articles; we don't have the option of providing duplicate information in class articles every time someone asks for it. In general, if you want to know information about a thing in Wikipedia, look in the article about that thing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the name of the class. This is also English wikipedia, not Spanish wikipedia. If I wnat to read about the Almirante Latorre class in Spanish, I know where to find that information, but not a single mention of the name, that is the title of the article, and what it means? Show me where that rule is, to exclude the translation and background of the title from FAs or from all articles, and I will work to get that policy changed. The article is incomplete without the information that this class is named after the admiral. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The class is named after the ship, not after the admiral. The ship is named after the admiral. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's still the title of the article, and I'll concede the point about the other ship; but for the article, I want to know why the article's title is in Spanish, what it means, and who the class is named after. I hate reading FAs that make me click on 5 links to find out what the title means. And, go to a Spanish/English dictionary for a number of readers. Okay, it's an article about a class of ships, named for something Spanish. I'm gone at that point, unless I'm specifically interested in ships. Ship articles are fun, a lot of general readers could read them with a little courtesy on the part of the editors. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ed17, I browsed the FAs at WP:SHIPS, and roughly 25% of the class articles that include a foreign word in the title make a quick mention (such as "named after important cities") of the meaning in the first paragraph. So we should have enough support to get this through FAC either with or without, in case you want to add something like "both named after famous admirals" and link both ships. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's exactly what I was going to do when I read the oppose before your comment. It would corespond to what I did in Rivadavia-class battleship. Thanks Dank. I'm not sure what translation you want, Kleo. I have a translation of "battleships" (acorazados) in the article already. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almirante? Seems like the obvious one to translate.... --Kleopatra (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I give up requesting that international wikipedia translate things into English. It seems there is a drive to prove we're multilingual here at en.wikipedia, which is turning into proof we don't care that our audience speaks English.[2] I care. I speak other languages, and I would never be so discourteous on wikipedia to demand that English language readers of articles I edit speak all those other languages. It's rude and it should not be any part of a FA.--Kleopatra (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to your comment on the talk page of this FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is generally well organized and well written, although the prose is stilted in a few places. I will add some specifics. I would like sentences to begin more clearly, rather than as asides to their own prose. This is minor. A few areas need linked to specifics. When initially discussing internal Argentine conflicts, do you mean Araucanization and Conquest of the Desert? Were these ships a response to Chile claiming the Straits of Magellan? The timing, early 20th century, is about the time these two combatants started upping the ante with other armaments in response to these late 19th c. treaties and grabs? --Kleopatra (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"asides to their own prose"? I don't understand what you mean. Any concrete examples I can examine? I added a link to Conquest of the Desert. Scheina wasn't very specific (his being a naval history, not a general history), and I didn't know that "conqueored the desert" would be close to the name of our Wikipedia article. Thanks very much for pointing me at it.[3] From sources, it looks like the ships were the direct result of Argentina acquiring the two Rivadavia-class battleships – was this not made clear enough in the article? Thank you very much for the review, and I'm looking forward to your response! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment I like the article and I certainly enjoyed the historical background. If the entire article was simply composed of the ship's specifications it would be quite boring. I'd like, however, to make a few comments about some pieces of the text that I believe could be improved.

1) Is there a need to all those Spanish-translated names? Ex.: acorazados, Guerra del Pacífico, crucero acorazado, etc...
This FAC may be closed soon so I'll jump in ... no opinion on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
2) "Chile often instigated or was drawn into naval competition with Argentina". Could it be a little more expanded to add "Chile often instigated or was drawn into naval competition with Argentina due to boundary dispute."?
I don't think that was the only source of disputes. - Dank (push to talk)
3) Could there be somekind of information telling that all three countries are located in South America? Perhaps in "When Argentina responded to Brazil's order for two dreadnoughts with two of its own, Chile felt that it also needed to respond". It could be added "When Argentina responded to neighbor Brazil's order for two dreadnoughts with two of its own, Chilefelt that it also needed to respond, leading to an arms race between the three nations of South America".
Most readers who care enough to read the article will know it, so I'd rather not put it in the lead section, but I did add "in southernmost South America" to the first sentence after the lead to deal with this point and your next point. I'm leaning opposed to changing, say, "to Brazil's order" in the lead to "to neighboring Brazil's order"; it just isn't something I often see in professional writing, although I understand that some people won't know it. I'm not sure how much more enlightened they'll be by "neighboring" if they didn't know it already. I could see linking to or adding a map. - Dank (push to talk)
4) "Conflicting Argentine and Chilean claims to Patagonia went back to the 1840s. In 1872 and again in 1878, Chilean warships seized merchant ships which had been licensed to operate in the disputed area by Argentina." What is Patagonia? Although I know what it is, most don't. Could you add something like ""Conflicting Argentine and Chilean claims to Patagonia—a geographic region containing the southernmost portion of South America—went back to the 1840s."
See above. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5) "for a design drawn up by J.R. Perret, who had also designed Brazil's Rio de Janeiro". Why there is no wikilink to Rio de Janeiro? Perhaps it could more information could be added such as: "for a design drawn up by J.R. Perret, who had also designed Brazil's Rio de Janeiro—a dreadnought ordered in 1911 but sold to Turkey before completion and renamed Sultan Osman I". Since Rio de Janeiro was also part of this arms race, the extra bit of info perhaps would be welcome.
6) "Almirante Latorre was not forcibly seized like the Ottoman Reshadieh and Sultan Osman I" could become "not forcibly seized like the Ottoman Reshadieh and Sultan Osman I (former Rio de Janeiro)".

Please, do not feel obliged to make the changes I suggested solely for the sake of pleasing me. If you believe it's not a good idea, say it. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed all but #2, Lecen (Dank is correct). They're all very valid thoughts, and I thank you for taking the time to read through the article. Dank, I'm not sure how professional it is, but I don't think a little extra context to ensure comprehension is a bad idea. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I was just talking about the words "neighbor" or "neighboring", they don't sound right in a history article somehow ... I'll ruminate on this. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really, really like this article. I's quite a shame that ed17 focus solely on the battleship articles. My suggestions had taken in acount that readers do not know everything. It's quite common among people who do not know South America that well to mistake Paraguay for Uruguay, etc... Congratulations you two. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More