Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/ARA Rivadavia

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 -- Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARA Rivadavia[edit]

Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan]
Toolbox

I originally wrote this article back in June/July 2009, using mostly Whitley. I have supplemented this with references to The New York Times and various other books and now feel it is ready for an A-class nomination. The only sticking point is page numbers for the new NYT references – irritatingly their website does not give page numbers any longer. Proquest still should, though, so I'd appreciate it if someone could look them up for me (it's only like three stories). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page numbers from ProQuest: not sure if these help or not:
    • Accident to Rivadavia, The New York Times, 19 September 1913, p. 1;
    • I couldn't find Argentine Warship Makes 22.56 Knots, but found 22.48 Knots for Rivadavia, The New York Times, 16 September 1913, p. 12;
    • Orders to Rivadavia to Bring Gold - The New York Times, 7 October 1918, p. 12;
    • I couldn't find Rivadavia Off For Home, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for taking the time to do this. I have added page numbers to "Accident" and "Orders." "22.48" is from a day earlier, I think; I left it out because it didn't add much. I can understand not having "Off for Home" because it's from 1926 (and so after the free articles), but it's frustrating to know they don't have 22.56... I'll try to figure something out. Thanks again! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've emailed the NYT about this. Let's see if I can (a) get a response and/or (b) actually change something... ! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • No dab links, external links check out and the citation tool reveals no errors (no action required);
    • One of the images lacks alt text (not required though - so its up to you if you want to add it);
    • I have made quite a number of changes to the lead, so please have a look and alter as required;
    • Per WP:CITESHORT I believe you should add the abbrev 'p.' (and 'pp.' for multipage cites) to your short citations, e.g. Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 45 would become Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," p. 45. and Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 45–46 would become Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," pp. 45–46.;
    • You might consider using the {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} templates for your references as they don't currently follow the standard format and seem a little inconsistent;
    • Overall though this is an excellent article and I'm happy to add my support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Anotherclown. I have used this citation style for quite some time; it follows most of the conventions of the The Chicago Manual of Style with a couple additions to assist WP readers (ISBNs, OCLCs, etc.). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries. ISBNs and OCLCs can still be used with the {{Citebook}} template but its up to you of course. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:Support
    • there is a mix of US and British English, e.g. "armor" (US) in the prose, but then "Armour" (British) in the infobox;
    • there is a mixture of terminology, e.g. "World War I" and then later "First World War": these should be consistent;
    • in the Background it begins with "Moreno's genesis..." Is this a typo? Should it be Rivadavia? I think it is best to keep the subject of the first sentence about the subject of the article, so if it isn't a typo maybe it could be reworded, e.g. "Rivadavia's sister ship, Moreno..." or something similar. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed
      • Fixed, good catch
      • That was a carryover from Moreno when I reused the section (being sister ships, they have the same background). Another good catch. Thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made a few minor links in the article. Overall it is comprehensive enough for A-class. Well done! —Ed!(talk) 20:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments "The United States' designated ...": no verb in the sentence. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Rockford, Maine": comma after per Chicago 10.30. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "a maximum speed of 22.567 knots": I don't remember seeing the speed to 3 decimal places before, so I'm wondering if their measurement was really that accurate. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "attempted to influence Argentina": in what way? - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Rivadavias": I don't think it's a good idea to mention the expression just once without a link or explanation. If you like, we could put the expression in the first sentence of Rivadavia-class battleship and link "the Rivadavias" to that page. But "Rivadavia and Moreno" works for me. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "After returning to Argentina in March–April 1926": Give the month in which she arrived. I wouldn't object to "leaving ... in March and returning in April", but that's probably more detail than the readers need. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "undergoing sea trials and "work-up". The dreadnought": What does "work-up" mean? - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Rio de Janeiro, Brazil": here too, comma after. I'm mentioning it instead of making the edit because I'm hoping others will start catching this. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All actionable requests done. @knots, they have been that specific for the Minas Geraes class and Bahia class. @influence, no specifics were given by Livermore. @work-up, I removed it, I think it is akin to trials. Apologies on getting back late to this; I had exams on Thursday and Friday, then forgot about it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a problem. Still no verb (like this sentence). My point about "influence" is that if you don't know what it means, then the reader won't know, either. In Wikipedia, sentences are supposed to convey information that means something. This isn't always true for press releases, cable news, political blather and academic puffery: sometimes their goal is to sound like they know what they're talking about without actually saying anything they could be pinned down on. Whenever a writer hints that they know something without actually telling us what they know, don't use that bit. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • @verb, try it now. @interests, I forgot that Livermore provided an example in a footnote, and I've included it in the article -- "group of French bankers, on behalf of the Russian government, were offering in gold twice the contract price of the ships, which were to be turned over to Greece." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/ARA_Rivadavia&oldid=1138361133"