Talk:Brazilian cruiser Benjamin Constant

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating the article!.

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Title

Some changes need to be made to the title. It should be moved to Benjamin Constant (Ship), and the short description should say something like the title and a date. Making sure there is consensus before moving the page. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● 📝} 01:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brazilian cruiser Benjamin Constant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 21:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and review this article. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame!

Infobox

• Since the naval flag of Brazil seems to be the same as the national flag, change "{{shipboxflag|Brazil|naval}}" to {{shipboxflag|Brazil|1889}}
• The infobox uses DMY format while the body uses MDY format. Change the body to DMY or the Infobox to MDY.
• Add "(full)" after 2,750 tons
• The infobox length conflicts with the body length. The body says 73.93 meters (242 ft 7 in) and the infobox says 79.93 m (262 ft 3 in). Which is correct?
• Same for the speed. The body says 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph) while the infobox says 40 knots (74 km/h; 46 mph). Which is correct?
• Include the power and propulsion in the infobox.
• Include when the ship was commissioned

Lead

• " Benjamin Constant-class" → "''Benjamin Constant''-class" (italicize)
• "It was the first ship in the Navy to bear this name and the first to be designed from the beginning as a training ship." → "It was the first ship in the navy to be named after Brazilian military officer Benjamin Constant and the first to be designed as a purpose-built training ship." (italicize)
• Are there more ships named Benjamin Constant?
• "it had a long career" → "it had a 32-year long career"
• Remove "in English" from the second parenthesis. Is there a source for the information for its nicknames?
• Was the fire the reason the ship was dismantled? If not, mention the fire before mentioning when it was dismantled.

General characteristics

• Remove the headers for Armament and Armor, I don't think they're necessary
• Specify the number of torpedo launcher tubes

History

• "Benjamin Constant had its keel laid" → "Benjamin Constant's keel was laid"
• Include the date the ship was launched
• Split "It was launched the following year" and "the first task of providing accommodation for the crew of Admiral Barroso, which had recently sunk." into two sentences
• "Once the delivery was made" what delivery? and where?
• "He sailed from La Seyne on July 18, arriving in Rio de Janeiro on September 4" why is this relevant?
• "that was being disputed with the British" → "that was being disputed with the United Kingdom"
• "The cruiser was integrated into the Instruction Division" when?
• Italicize Duarte Huet de Bacelar. Is there no page for this ship?
• link Trindade Island
• In the 2 paragraphs of "1901–1908", link all the cities it visited that have not already been linked in the article
• "fourteen newly trained Second Lieutenants" → "fourteen newly trained second lieutenants"
• Delink all the cities which have already been linked earlier in the article in the last paragraph of 1909–1913
• "The years from 1914 to 1915 were regular for Benjamin Constant," elaborate on what "regular" means.
• Do we know why it was removed from the active service roaster?
• Do we know why it suffered a fire?

References

• All of the references being at the end of paragraphs doesn't let the reader know what source is referring to what, and also makes it difficult to verify the content of the paragraphs. The second paragraph of 1901–1908 also seems to be WP:OVERKILL. Please disperse the references throughout the paragraphs and not all at the end.

Images

• It seems it like it should be out of copyright, but the date of the image is definitely incorrect. It should be the date it was taken, not the date it was uploaded.

Other

• No OR
• No copyright vio
• Seems to be a translation of the Portuguese article which as far as I'm aware is acceptable
• Neutral
• Stable
• Focused

• @Isaguge: I've done an initial review of the article. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 22:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Isaguge: Don't forget this review is ongoing. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 05:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

    Hello. How can I remove the article from the GA nominations? It has some issues I cannot fix (as the different measures, which are a result of the calculation by wikipedia itself when converting them through the template). Isaguge (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

    • @Isaguge: I'll just fail the nomination to remove it. Everything to get it to Good Article is still listed above. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 02:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

The discussion above 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.