Talk:Borodino-class battlecruiser

Question

Obvious question - why did the Red Army not want Izmail converted into a carrier? Conceptual opposition to carriers, a desire to avoid the Navy taking a larger share of the defence budget by having a new capital ship of any type, or something even more complicated? Shimgray | talk | 21:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Too much money not going to the Army.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit thoughts

Some thoughts for copyediting:

• We introduce one of the ships by name in a sentence "Components for the turbines of the Navarin that had been ordered" without previously identifying that the Navarin is a Borodino class battlecruiser. Might be better to introduce the names before making use of them.
• The sentence "but the Duma session ended before it could be voted on" might be better as "but the Duma session ended before it approved funding for the construction", or some such. Later in the article we learn that the Duma does finally approve funds for the project.
  • I changed it to read "but the Duma session ended before the proposal could be voted on".
• "and some money had to be diverted from the budget for the Svetlana-class cruisers." strikes me as poor phrasing ... had based on what? Better to say that the budget was in any event reduced to provide funds for the construction of Svetlana-class cruisers.
  • Changed to "money was diverted from the budget".
• There are a couple of "In the meantime" phrases; would be nice to rephrase one of them.
  • I dropped one instance.
• Check consistency of use of Armament versus Armaments. I may have introduced the latter, possibly in error.
• We have no article on high-tension steel. That seems a pity. I'd prefer to keep the link. There's no use in specifying the material if we have no definition of what it means.
• Not thrilled with the sentence "as shown in the table below, but in some respects the situation was worse than shown as the turrets for Izmail were not expected to be completed until 1919." I understand the logic, having looked at the table, since we're telling the reader that the situation was worse before they have had a chance to see from the table what the situation was.
  • I agree; i have worked the material into the prose.

--Tagishsimon (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tagishimon. We had an edit conflict there! Suddenly this article is popular. I have looked over your remarks now that my first pass is complete, and taken action on some of your suggestions. My responses are above in intented text. I will do another pass later this evening and see if I can spot anything else. Please feel free to introduce more improvements in the meantime, as I am stopping for now. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. I'll give it a little more time, though I should really do some IRL work... --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• The sentence "and that the effects of muzzle blast on the open sighting hoods on the turret roofs below would cause damage to the guns in the lower turret" is not doing it for me. It previously read "and that the effects of muzzle blast on the open sighting hoods on the turret roofs below prevented superfiring turrets from firing their guns over the lower turret." I understand the point being made in the paragraph as being that non-superfiring guns were chosen rather than superfiring guns, since the latter would cause damage through the open sighting hoods. But I may have this wrong.
  • I don't think there was anything physically preventing them from using the upper guns while the sighting hoods were open on the lower set; they chose not to do so because they did not want to damage the lower guns. Sturmvogel can fix this if I have misinterpreted.
    • I've edited it to make more clear what was going on; its by way of explaining why they went for non-superfiring. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, now that I see the edit, I agree this phrasing works better. I am postponing any further work on it until tomorrow when it will seem fresh again. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• In the Armament section, we speak of one of the gun sets as "were intended to be" but state that the other guns "were mounted", etc. However we know that no guns ever came close to the ships. Why do we single out only one set of guns as "intended" when, in fact, all were equally only ever proposals/specifications.
  • Yea, I agree. The whole paragraph makes it sound like the ship was actually completed. I think we may need to change the whole paragraph to reflect the fact that the ship was never built. You can work on this if you have time, as I have RL things to do for an hour or so. Again, Sturmvogel can re-work anything we misinterpret as presumably he still has his source material available.--Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Per this edit, are we in British English here? --John (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Photos

I'm puzzled.

• The single photo currently in the article is labelled "Launch of Izmail in 1915" but doesn't seem to show a launching - more like a ship under construction
• The photo on todays main page is labelled "Izmail under construction at the Baltic Works", yet looks to me like a ship being launched

And why is the latter photo not in the article at all? Davidships (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Because the photo's copyright is disputed. I don't believe that it is copyright free, but my request to delete it from commons was denied.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose that would apply to the first image as well, though I would think that a Fair Use argument for a lower res version could run on the basis of being the only know profile image. Davidships (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I suppose, but I found the resolution of fair use issues to be so arbitrary that I gave up years ago. I agree that it's a better image; if you want to take up the gauntlet so we can use it, feel free.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Spellings

At present this article uses the American English forms "ruble" and "percent" instead of "rouble" and "per cent". [1][2] 92.21.249.248 (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Ban-evasion by WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)