Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [1].

List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this list has just recently passed a ACR under Wikiproject Military History and follows the established pattern for battleship related lists. (see List of battleships of Austria-Hungary, another FL of mine for a comparison.) Questions and comments are welcome. Thanks :) White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 12:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • List looks good but I have some comments:
  • The lead says that the German gift significantly contributed to the Ottoman decision to join Germany, but later in the article this is not expanded upno. Meanwhile, the text says that the two ships seized by the Brits had a major role in the decision. Which one is it? And if the former, then please expand in the text.
  • These ship articles always lead me wonder why were their name chosen that way, but rarely say it. Here it is obvious that is the origin for Sultan Osman I but I would still like a note here on when did this person rule, or what sort of role he had. As for the likes of Reshadieh I have absolutely no idea for the origin of the name. Since it is the name of a class, some indication should be given.
  • For example Barbaros Hayreddin came surely from Hayreddin Barbarossa. If you can't find a reference for it, try to add a footnote at least with the Pasha. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to improve the caption for the lead image. It is really dry right now. Also, the date in the image page is listed as 1911. Nergaal (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to expand the lead caption a bit. I don't know if it is really better, so feel free to change/revert it. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all of my major concerns have been addressed. Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Per MOS, lead images shouldn't be more than 300px in general.
  • "in total failure" is "total" strictly necessary?
  • siezure - typo.
  • "By the dawn of the 20th century" - very emotive, not very encyclopedic.
  • What's a keel block?
  • Where's Thrace?
  • "4, Parsons" why comma?
  • "She was scrapped on the slipway in 1914 along with Reshad-I-Hammiss" - you already said the Reshad-I-Hammiss was scrapped in 1912...

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

Same table issues that were at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy/archive1. To save a repeat conversation, a discussion can be found in my resolved comments there with detailed info on what the problem is (see also the list's talk page) and how to fix it. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switching the abbr to mos does not work for the displacement and armament....--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 20:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Displacement should now work following my request here. Main guns seems flawed as is "6 × 28 centimetres" is a bit ambiguous and could be a main gun 28cm long and 6 cm wide. Note the other list resorted to a manual "6 × 28-centimetre" style as it was deemed better (not by me). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the displacement.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 16:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the main guns? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still does not work....It comes up as a red link thing...--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 23:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the inclusion criteria for the list should be mentioned on the page since it excluded the Ottoman battleship Mesudiye. While I understand your reasoning for excluding her, several notable naval publications such as Brassey's Naval Annual list her as a battleship. It would be extremely helpful to the reader to mention why she is not included on the page (because she was a coversion), despite the fact that several sources list her as a battleship. For example Lawrence Sondhaus's Naval warfare, 1815-1914 specifically states that she was converted into a pre-dreadnaught from a casemate type ship.XavierGreen (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 20:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments –
  • Reshadieh class: "However, Reshadieh was seized by the Royal Navy at the outbreak of the World War I...". Don't see the need for "the" right before World War I.
  • Sultan Osman I: "the British government seized the vessel for fear of it being used against her in the conflict." Should we really be used "her" in reference to a government? I understand using it for the ships, but this might be a bit much.
  • Yavuz Sultan Selim: "The German transfer of Goeben to the Ottoman Empire fulled public support...". Should "fulled" be something else?
  • There doesn't appear to be anything citing the two footnotes.
  • Since reference 3 has a page range, it should be formatted with pp., not p. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All issues have been addressed save for one footnote.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 16:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What has become of this uncited footnote? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article on the ship is unsourced. I have no way of providing a citation. Should I remove the footnote?--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 02:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would suggest commenting it out; if you do find a source, you can restore it. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It states the info in Sondhaus on page 218, a work you already have used as a source in the article. I added it to the note and made it visable again. If you need another source you can also consult the 1911 issue of Brasseys.XavierGreen (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Clarify exactly ships are meant here. The three Reshadieh-class ships were ordered, not purchased. In order to update the fleet, the Ottoman Navy Foundation purchased larger battleships such as Sultan Osman I, three of the planned Reshadieh-class battleships, and one that had already been built. What ship is meant by this last bit?
  • Clarify these two sentences so that the reader knows these were the only two ships nearly complete when war broke out: The United Kingdom confiscated the ships at the outbreak of World War I. Sultan Osman I was renamed HMS Agincourt while Reshadieh was renamed HMS Erin
  • Fix this: Out of all the battleships legally owned by the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the war, half were either scrapped or ondhausewere seized by the British in the early days of the conflict.
  • You're mixing Brit and American English with centimetres.
  • One too many ands in this sentence: This act outraged the Ottoman people and was a major factor in turning public opinion against Britain and helped to drive the Ottoman Empire into an alliance with the Central Powers--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all of these issues except for the centimetres one... What do you want me to do about it? make the article solely British or American English?--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 02:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pick one or the other; just be consistent throughout the article. If you want American measurements add |sp=us to the conversion templates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status on this issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still in the middle of working on it. This is the last issue.--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 01:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added them into the article but I'm not sure if I did it right....--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 01:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Overall, the list is in good shape. I think you could have easily gotten away with a short table, but this list provides good list-like information as well as historical. I think the key is very helpful. Below are the issues that stood out to me.

  • I think a year in the lead would be helpful for readers unfamiliar with the time frame of the First Balkan War.
Done.--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, wikilinking Royal Navy would help those unfamiliar with military history.
Done.--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why the table widths are 98% instead of 100%?
I think I changed it to that so the table will not look messed up....--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Warship International from the Naval Records Club a reliable source? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    • It's a published magazine; it's as reliable as any other published, non-controversial source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just checking. I inferred something less professional from the word "Club". (Guyinblack25 talk 21:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
        • Understandable, they later changed their name to the International Naval Research Organization, probably for that very reason.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support: 98% table width seems odd to me, but I don't think that warrants opposition or withholding support. Everything else looks good. I hope you consider 100% width because I believe most other lists use that formatting. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:54, 29 December 2010 (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_list_candidates/List_of_battleships_of_the_Ottoman_Empire/archive1&oldid=1136457060"