Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brazilian cruiser Bahia/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 23:51, 31 October 2009 [1].

Brazilian cruiser Bahia[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • contribs) 19:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Bahia was a Brazilian cruiser which served in both World Wars. Easily the most interesting—and oddest—part of her career was her sinking; depth charges aboard the ship were exploded by accidental 20 mm gunfire, sinking the ship within minutes. As you might imagine, there are not many sources on this ship, and the sources that I did get tend to frequently contradict, which made this a rather difficult article to write. I made attempt to address this within the article using notes, but further comments would be appreciated. Thanks for your reviews! Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 19:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Specifications. I have checked the specifications quoted in the article against Janes Fighting Ships of World War I (Litho reprint of 1919 ed.). London: Janes Publishing Company reprint by Random House. 2001. ISBN 1 85170 378 0. and all match very closely save for Janes stating the endurance to have been 1,400nmi at 23.5kts and 3,500nmi at 10kts (as opposed the article stating 5,500nmi at 10.7kts). Farawayman (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find where I got 5500nmi; the source I cited either removed it or I found it somewhere else. Either way, citing Jane's is fine by me. Can you add citations to the infobox for everything Jane's covers (on the theory that many citations are better than a few)? I'll add the full citation in the bibliography. Many thanks, —Ed (talk • contribs) 22:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Headbomb:

  • Should Brown-Curtis be Brown–Curtis?
  • I think 'Atlantic to Pacific theaters of war' could be wikilinked to something.
  • Parà-class is hyphenated, but Adventure class is not. Pick one style or the other and stick with it throughout the text.
  • Tyne yard → Tyne yard?
  • murdered → killed?
  • Could presidential palace be wikilinked to something?
  • Wikilinking stuff in "First World War, the Brazilian Navy was sent out to patrol the South Atlantic with French, British and American naval units" would make it better. Particularly the individual navies.
  • Should "Lucas Alexandre Boiteux" be wikilinked?
  • Wikilink "underwater mine"?
  • "The survivors of the blast had to endure four or five days of no food," → "The survivors of the blast endured four or five days of no food," seems better to me.
  • Wikilink "Robert Scheina"?

These are style issues mostly, and I don't feel like deciding for the author what is best for the article. I trust that these will be fixed or otherwise be addressed. Content-wise everything looks fine to me. Hence support. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Kirk

  • I was reviewing the Scheina book, and I'm almost positive the reference is for Volume 2: The age of the professional soldier, 1900-2001 since the page# matches. My ISBN# doesn't match, so I'm hesitant to change it without checking first.
  • There should be some mention about the Bahia cruiser type changing over time - instead of just the one mention of scout cruiser at the very beginning. It never was comparable to a full cruiser, so I'd sprinkle in some light cruiser & as it became more and more obsolete, it was more of a destroyer.

Kirk (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • It appears that they have the same ISBN for both of the volumes? Worldcat is probably mistaken. Either way, the OCLC is right, and if you have a copy of the book that says it is really a different ISBN, please add it.
    • The problem is that reliable sources don't remark on it outside what is already in the article: "Bahia was used extensively during for escorts and patrols, conducting 67 of the former and 15 of the latter[3] despite being labeled as "little more than oversized destroyers and relatively slow" by the United States Naval Institute's magazine, Proceedings.[19]" —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • References look good now. I was thinking of the sources you cited which I read that called the Bahia a 'Light Cruiser' as opposed to 'Cruiser' (Scheina, for one). Kirk (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The term "light cruiser" wasn't around until the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty though. :-) Contemporary sources (ex. [2]) refer to her simply as a cruiser. —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Light cruisers, as in light armoured cruisers, were around prior to the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, but the Bahia was based on a scout cruiser class instead of a light cruiser. So before the treaty it was a scout cruiser, after a light cruiser (and very small at that). Kirk (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support: Farawayman

  • As requested above, I have added some specifications (coal) and aligned the endurance data with that of Janes. Citations added as well.
  • Re the Janes reference, Moore wrote the foreword and is not the author. I'm not too sure how that should be managed in the reference / citation. The Janes volumes that I have do not have a stated author.
  • The specification infobox section called "General characteristics" should perhaps have a note stating that these were applicable on commissioning, as after the 1920's refit I presume the specifications would have changed quite significantly.

Farawayman (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks! Does Jane's happen to have armor specifications as well? I've found that Conway's doesn't always include all of the armor present on a ship...
    • re Moore - perhaps there was an editor listed?
    • Done. :-) Thanks, —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback:

  • Additional Janes specs:
    • Armour: Deck: 1.5" Conn: 3"
    • Weapon Traverse: Fwd: 2x4.7" Broadside: 5x4.7" Astn: 2x4.7"
    • Watertight compartments: 16
  • No editors listed, in any volumes. I think using "Janes" in the citation is more appropriate than "Moore"

Farawayman (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Hmm, the deck armor listing does not agree with Conway's... —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Loosmark

  • The article doesn't mention that this ship was a scout cruiser, much more lightly armed and armoured than a protected cruiser. Loosmark (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The design was based off of a British scout cruisers', but as I said to Kirk above, most sources refer to both Bahia and Rio Grande do Sul simply as "cruisers". —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cruisers of World War Two: An International Encyclopedia by Whitley refers to them as "scout cruisers". Loosmark (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have the book? If so, can I ask you to add information and/or citations for information already present to the article? I don't have access to that book through anything, including inter-library loan; I've tried. Does he have any significant information on Bahia's and Rio Grande do Sul's service careers? —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately not, it has similar info as the article only in a much shorter form. One difference is the source gives the number of convoys escorted by Bahia as 64 (Rio Grande do Sul escorted 62) plus that Bahia participated in 11 other mission and Rio Grande do Sul participated in 15. I don't know if that is more correct than what the article says or not. Loosmark (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Everywhere I turn, the sources contradict each other... Two things: you have an email, and what page is that information on? I'll include both figures in the article. —Ed (talk • contribs) 22:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's on page 22. Loosmark (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay, I've added the info. Don't forget to check you inbox! :-) Much thanks, —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "First World War" could the phrase "Towards the beginning of the First World War" by tightened a bit? That's very broad when the first actual date you read is 26 October 1917.
  • Is "In the opening years of the ..." better?
  • Sort of. My issue is mostly just the lack of specificity, which that doesn't do much about. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't have refs in the lead, but maybe something for "also spelled Baia in some sources" to deal with the weasel word?
  • Are you working on her class' article? Seems like a pretty big red link.
  • Under "First World War" could the phrase "Towards the beginning of the First World War" by tightened a bit? That's very broad when the first actual date you read is 26 October 1917.
  • Is the use of the coordinate system in text normal? I honestly don't know.
  • I simply removed it; looking back, only one source spelled it that way.
  • If I can find more information, yes. Otherwise, hopefully the redlink will spur someone with more applicable sources then me to create a decent article.
  • Is "In the opening years of the ..." better?
  • I believe it is; see Battle of the Coral Sea, for instance. —Ed (talk • contribs) 03:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I really beat the crap out of this article at the A-class review and it has all been resolved. I do not see anything of major error that should prevent the pass to FA. --Brad (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for everything Brad! We may have sparred a bit, but the article is surely the better for your efforts. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Made some minor changes to the text. This reads oddly: with the exhaust being trunked into three funnels, instead of two; trunked means to combine multiple funnels into one. They added a funnel as is explained in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, you're right. I can't think of a better way to phrase it though... —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then say that they had to add a funnel for the extra boilers. Trunking has nothing to do with it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Kirk: I made some minor changes too, trying to reduce the number of red links, fixing some references, and I think its FA.
  • Loosmark and I both mentioned the type should be Scout cruiser prior to 1922, and after 1922 Light Cruiser (although it was so 'light' many sources still refer to it as a scout cruiser). Should we just go in and start changing 'cruiser' to scout/light cruiser? I don't feel like there was a consensus on this point, and nothing has changed.
  • I created the Pará class destroyer article based on Conway (although I haven't deal with the later Fletcher class destroyer-based version)- what do you think about doing the same thing for the two major red links at the top for Bahia-class-cruiser and its sister ship? I think this should be done prior to the FA approval, thoughts?Kirk (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the need to deliberately add mentions here—outside of the "Construction and commissioning" section, I believe Bahia is referred to as a "cruiser" just once. —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to add a 'light cruiser' and 'heavy cruiser' twice for cruisers other than the Bahia; the Bahia's class I guess we can leave to the reader. Kirk (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. I'll change the mention of "cruiser" to "scout cruiser". —Ed (talk • contribs) 16:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought about it & I went ahead and created the Bahia class cruiser article based on this one since it this article already had about 95% of the info needed. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eek, I can see the many similarities between that and this one lol. I'll try to beef that up later. —Ed (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources comment - lean support - I checked through some of them but haven't had a chance to go through thoroughly. However, I haven't seen anything that caught my eye or stood out yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see Bahia 2 and Bahia 4; before and after-- what did I miss? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, nevermind. The nearly identical captions fooled me. Sorry about that. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Brazilian_cruiser_Bahia/archive1&oldid=1136098586"