Talk:Russian battleship Poltava (1894)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Benea (talk · contribs) 20:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably review this in the next day or two, if not before. Benea (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2011 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Given the change in the article name, the introductory sentence needs rewriting to refer to her as Poltava first.
   • The lead seems very short given this ship had such an eventful career. Expand it with some more details.
   • 'began an assault of the Port's outer defenses.' - an assault 'on'. Try using different terms to distinguish between Port Arthur the city, and the port inside Port Arthur. Avoid using just 'Port' when the city is meant, use 'Port Arthur', or 'the city', or some such.
   • Wartime service covers not just the Russo-Japanese War and the First World War, but a considerable period of peacetime as well. Section this further to avoid a misleading heading. It would be good to have three separate sections for the Russo-Japanese War, the time in Japanese service, and the return to the Russians and her ultimate fate.
   • 'She was the only one of her class to survive the war, with Petropavlovsk sinking due to a mine and Sevastopol being scuttled after the capitulation of the port' - this is in the wrong place, after a section dealing with the First World War, when it refers to the Russo-Japanese War. By port, I assume you mean Port Arthur, and not just the port area of the city? Be clear about this. Reduce the wordiness, e.g. 'sunk by a mine', 'scuttled after the capitulation', etc.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • 'As no conflicts were ongoing at this time, Poltava sat inactive' - does this mean that Poltava was just not utilised in any combat roles? Or literally that she was kept inactive in port, never putting to sea for even fleet manoeuvres, exercises, training cruises, etc? Unless the latter can be shown to be the case, this statement needs rewording for clarity.
   • 'where they arrived on 13 April 1901 as part of the First Pacific Squadron.' - Do you mean they joined the First Pacific Squadron on their arrival? At the moment it reads that the voyage to the Far East was made under the designation of First Pacific Squadron.
   • 'As Russia was not at war with any Far East countries at that time, Poltava once again stayed in port' - much as before. The absence of a conflict does not mean that ships never left port. Nor would it be the case that Russia would have had to have been at war with a Far Eastern country, the First Pacific Squadron was intended to be able to respond to other colonial powers' interests in the region, like France, Britain and Germany's. Perhaps something like 'As Russia was at peace at this time, the Poltava...'
   • Some paragraphs end in sentences without cites.
   • 'The Japanese flagship Mikasa replied with several shots that hit Poltava.' Given that the previous sentence is Poltava firing on a different Japanese ship, 'replied' is an odd choice of verb.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • 'In early February 1904, the Japanese Navy launched a surprise attack' - be specific, what date exactly?
   • 'The Mikasa was soon hit several times, including two shots from Poltava. The cruiser Nisshin was also hit once by Poltava.' Active voice is better, try 'the Russians scored several hits on Mikasa, including two from shots fired by Poltava. Poltava also scored one hit on the cruiser Nisshen'.
   • 'their speed to get' - their superior speed?
   • 'By the 17:35, the Japanese had again gotten within range of the Russian tail end' - omit 'the' in front of 17:35. In the previous sentence the Japanese are trying to get ahead of the Russians, but now they are closing on their tail end?
   • 'killing Vitgeft' - who is Vitgeft, what is his role in the battle?
   • 'By 9 December four battleships and two cruisers had been sunk by the Japanese, including the Poltava' - no further details, like an exact date, the nature of the damage, etc? Just that she was sunk?
   • 'She saw little service during her Japanese career, besides the Siege of Tsintao' - what was this service? Shore bombardment, blockade, etc?
   • 'As Japan and Russia were allies in World War I, it was decided that Tango should be transferred back to Russia' - nothing more on this decision, how it was reached, etc? Why was Poltava returned, and other ships weren't? Why did it take until late 1916 that the return was arranged, the war had been going on for 2 years by then?
   • In the final paragraph can we have some more details on the locations visited by the ship? Where is Aleksandrovsk? The Baltic, the White Sea?
   • 'She joined the Revolutionary fleet in October of the same year' - some more context here on the Russian Revolution of October. Briefly what was it, and what did it mean for her? Any information on whether she was a revolutionary ship, or was she taken by force by external revolutionary forces? Similarly, why were the allies invading?
   • 'who described it as "aground and unseaworthy".' - standardise pronoun usage. 'Her' and 'she', rather than it, even when referring to the ship in a non-combat capacity.

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • 'Poltava destroyed at Port Arthur' - an odd caption. While it does say that on the postcard, use some other term than 'destroyed', since we know she was raised, and indeed does not look destroyed at all. Perhaps 'Poltava, partially submerged at Port Arthur'. It may be interesting to state the nature of the image, 'Japanese postcard showing the Poltava...' etc.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Sections 1,2 and 5 of the review are done. Some info for the third section, like the return deal and the damage done, is unavailable, at least for me. Buggie111 (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a few further comments:

• I've removed one of the templates used to change the title appearance. Two creates a lot of whitespace at the top of the page and is unnecessary.
• I've reworded your lead to remove a lot of repetition and redundancies. I still think there is more detail to be had though. Try to treat the lead as a brief and chronological overview of the article, and expand it to two paragraphs, or more.
• Can we have the cyrillic forms of Poltava and Chesma in the lead.
• Change 'suffered no casualties' to 'sustained no casualties'
• 'slowly pushing south to Port Arthur, began an assault on Port Arthur's outer defenses' - 'began an assault on the city's outer defenses', to avoid repetition.
• 'Due to this' - well, specifically due to the desire to move the ships out of harms way given the increasingly untenable position the Russians found themselves in. Make the connection between the Japanese assaults and the decision to break out of the port clear.
• 'They later engaged the Japanese fleet in what became the Battle of the Yellow Sea' - who engaged who? The Russians were attempting to break out, not to seek combat.
• 'They later engaged' - how much later? The same day?
• Combine sentences to form 'The Japanese flagship Mikasa soon fired several shots that hit Poltava, causing the Russian squadron to drop back to support her'
• 'The Japanese flagship Mikasa soon fired...' - again, how soon? I would omit soon altogether, but if a sense of chronology is what you are going for, replace soon with 'then' or something similar.
• It's still not clear how the Japanese, with their superior speed and their stated intention to get ahead of the Russians, are in the next sentence closing on the Russian tail.
• 'on Poltava, along with three armored cruisers' - are these cruisers other Russian ships? It isn't immediately clear. If so, use' on Poltava and three armored cruisers'.
• 'Asahi' or 'Asashi'? Both appear in the text.
• Still no context on who Vitgeft is.
• 'The Poltava was hit by 12 14-inch and 8 12-inch shells' - to differentiate the numbers for clarity, 'twelve 14-inch and eight 12-inch shells'.
• 'By 9 December four battleships and two cruisers had been sunk by the Japanese, including the Poltava' - active voice again, 'By 9 December the Japanese had sunk four battleships and two cruisers, including the Poltava'
• 'her original name was used for' - 'her original name was already in use for', just to make the point you are trying to get across clear here.

I'll keep an eye on this review, apologies for the brief gap, as I was away for a few days. Benea (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please check it out now. Buggie111 (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Some more comments:

• The lead should function as an overview of the information contained in the article body. But there is no mention of the fates of Sevastopol and Petropavlovsk in the body. Make sure the information is used in the body, and the cite is moved there. Cite everything in the lead, or none of it. I'd suggest citing none of it, and making sure the information appears cited in the body.

• The lead looks good, but please re-add the cite about Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol to its new appearance in the 'Japanese career' section.

• 'As Japan and Imperial Russia were allies at the time,' - at what time?
• Make the chronology in the lead clear. When was she sunk? When was she raised? When did the Japanese government decide (see above)? When was she captured by the British? When was she abandoned and recaptured? Full dates aren't necessary, but please give a year.
• Make sure you are making relevant internal links. Baltic Fleet, Port Arthur and First Pacific Squadron are not linked on their first mentions, for example.
• 'She soon turned in pursuit along with other ships of the Russian fleet' - how soon? Right away? Make it explicit or remove soon and have something like 'In response to the attack, Poltava...' What does turned mean here? The physical manoeuvring of the ship to bring her guns to bear? Or do you simply mean that Poltava raised steam and began to sail out of the harbour in pursuit of the Japanese?
• Specific chronology -'the First Pacific Squadron sortied from its base in an attempt to escape to Vladivostok. They were then intercepted by the Japanese fleet in what became the Battle of the Yellow Sea.' - When did they sortie, when were they intercepted, when was the battle?

• Still lacking a date/time for the battle.

• It's still not clear what happens with the Japanese trying to get ahead of the Russians after a break in the battle, and then only managing to resume their position at the rear when it restarts. Were the Japanese simply not fast enough to get ahead? Was it a tactical move on their part?

• I've dug out Forczyk myself and had a look. So far as I can tell, Togo breaks off contact by turning to starboard, thus the range opens up. It's a risky tactic for Togo, as the Russians could now attempt to breakaway, but Togo's ships are faster and he uses this advantage to first pull out of range and hang off the Russian's starboard rear quarter for a time until he wishes to reengage, when he increases speed and pulls back in, still on the starboard rear. I've tried to clarify this in the article.

• 'tried use their speed to get ahead' - Obviously they were using their speed, just say 'tried to get ahead'
• Vitgeft is not linked, and his full name should be given at first mention. Peresvyet is also not linked.
• 'found that the city was already under siege by' - hardly already surely? Wasn't the city under siege before the ships had left, and wasn't it the cause of the sortie in the first place? Maybe use 'found the city still under siege by...'
• 'Following the end of the war, Japanese engineers raised Poltava on 8 July 1905,' - But the Treaty of Portsmouth ending the war wasn't signed until 5 September 1905? The sentence can be further tightened and the clauses reduced for readability - 'Japanese engineers raised Poltava on 8 July 1905'.
• There is still no context whatsoever for many of the radical events that affected Poltava during her last years. What did it mean to be a Bolshevik ship? What were the British (formerly Poltava's allies) doing that meant they captured her, what were they even doing in Russia? It doesn't (and shouldn't) be particularly exhaustive or detailed, but some contextualisation is necessary here for the reader.

Ok, I've had another pass, many things have been addressed and I've struck them to reflect this. But there is more to be tweaked, see above. Overall we are getting close now. Benea (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Some things addressed, some things still to do, or otherwise explained why they cannot be addressed. Benea (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Time for Yellow Sea added, cite moved. Can't explain exactly why the IJN was behind the Russians despite their speed, and am not sure about the last point. Should I explain exactly why the Allies invaded Russia/ captured Poltava? I thought that was detailed to be added pre-FAC. Buggie111 (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Can this review be wrapped up soon? Progress has been good on both sides but it has been on hold for quite a while. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I"ve adressed everything I can. It's Benea's call. Buggie111 (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Since Benea's went inactive (last edit Nov. 25), poke me in a few days if there's no return and I'll wrap this up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just returned from a slightly extended trip, I'll check over this in the next few hours or hopefully tomorrow at the latest. Benea (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of the context for those later years, everything has been addressed. On reflection, and in order to produce a resolution to this review, I will pass it without this contextualised detail, as, at least as far as the subject of this article is concerned, there are no major gaps. I would simply strongly encourage you to look further at this though as you advance this article through the assessment processes. Benea (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)