View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South American dreadnought race/archive1

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 Ucucha 19:44, 4 February 2012 [1].

South American dreadnought race

[edit]

South American dreadnought race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article tells the curious story of a dreadnought arms race between Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. In 1907, Brazil changed a previous naval order to include three dreadnoughts – a new design of warships that was much more powerful than any earlier naval vessel. The Argentine government, Brazil's chief rival, had a major problem with that, so they responded by ordering two larger dreadnoughts. Chile, Argentina's rival and major naval competitor in the 1890s, didn't like this new development, so they ordered two super-dreadnoughts. The costs for these ships were staggeringly astronomical. The Argentine ships' original cost was a fifth – that's 20%, folks – of the entire Argentine budget. Making everything worse, later in-service costs would easily add up to more than half the original cost over the first five years. The whole ride came to a crashing halt when WWI hit, which was probably a good thing for the countries involved, but the dreadnoughts received by the countries were used through the Second World War.

I hope you find this topic as interesting as I have. This article, the last in a series on South American dreadnoughts, has been about seven months in the making, and I have received help from many people in crafting it. Lecen bought and provided translations of the chief Portuguese-language book in this area, and I've received copyediting assistance from Dank, John, and Drmies. Fifelfoo validated most of the sources and did a thorough close-plagiarize check, which eventually ended up as a Bugle op-ed. The article went through a Milhist A-class review in June 2011. I'd love to hear any feedback you all have. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nearly there I made a couple of tweaks, am curious as to how given the contemporary lack of reliable earthquake prediction technology an earthquake in 1908 would cause a 1907 recession, especially if the 1906 Valparaíso earthquake was not worthy of mention.:) Also there is an aside in the footnotes about an Argentinian policy of being able to fight both Chile and Brazil. Such a policy would probably be worth an earlier mention, especially if they were trying to follow it. It might also be worth mentioning somewhere the size of other Latin American navies. Peru has not always had good relations with Chile and Brazil borders all of them bar Ecuador and Chile. ϢereSpielChequers 21:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • He actually says "Chile's entrance into the South American naval race had been deferred because of adverse economic conditions. The collapse of the nitrate market in 1907, and a disastrous earthquake in 1908 had brought on a severe financial depression." but I wonder if we can assume he meant the 1906 quake? It seems obvious what he meant, at least to me. I don't see the footnote you are talking about, only a list of tonnages, and Argentina certainly never had such a policy or they would have gone bankrupt :-) They certainly had to be among the naval powers to compete with the Chilean Navy or the Brazilian Navy, but not both. Other Latin American navies at the time were tiny compared to the three main powers. Peru bought a ridiculously obsolete armored cruiser, Dupuy de Lôme, in 1912, but never took possession of it, so they were left with two new scout cruisers that had been completed in 1906 and 07. By 1914, they had a grand total of two cruisers, one destroyer, two submarines (mostly useless for want of spare parts), and other assorted ancient warships including an 1850-built wooden(!) frigate that was a training ship. Also, Peru is the only other South American navy worthy of being listed by Conway's in the continent's section. A few others are listed at the back of the book, but that's the realm of such powerful countries like Morocco, San Salvador, and Zanzibar. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't be so sure that the recession was in 1907, on my reading of that source it may have been, or it could have been a year or so later. Better to leave it undated; Something along the lines of "Due to a recession caused by x in 06 and y in 07 Chile postponed her naval plan till 10."
Re "an honest and respectable Government {{sic}}" Whose sic is this and why?
I can't find the sentence I thought I saw about Argentina, so I'm striking that as a senior moment.
I think you'll find that it might be worth mentioning Peru and specifically the Naval Campaign of the War of the Pacific as part of the background. Your story does start in the 1870s, it even mentions that war, and even if Peru never competed in the naval race afterwards she certainly had a fleet in that war. As for the rest, if they never had significant fleets during this era then it would in my view make sense to say something like: In the decades after the defeat of the Peruvian navy in the war of the Pacific, only three South American countries, Argentina, Brazil and Chile, maintained significant navies.
ϢereSpielChequers 19:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
It was for the capitalization of "Government". Too minor to include, or can I make it lowercase as an acceptable typographical change? (based on WP:MOSQUOTE I think it is, but I can revert if necessary)
I'll use Scheina and add this in the next few days! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • On an unrelated note to the above, why do you use parenthetical references for the block quotes?
    • Also, wouldn't the Argentine ships Libertad and Independencia be better referred to as coastal defense ships rather than battleships? That's how Conway's 1860-1905 classifies them. Parsecboy (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chicago 13.68 says "The source of a block quotation is given in parentheses at the end of the quotation and in the same type size."
      • I think they were popularly classified and thought of as battleships at the time, but they were really more like the coast-defense ships of the Nordic countries. I'm fine with them being called either one. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not enough to oppose over or anything, but I can't help but feel that the current section headings are a bit melodramatic at the expense of encyclopedic-ness. Have you considered alternatives, perhaps "[Start of dreadnought race and ]Brazilian orders", "Argentina and Chile's[/Argentinian and Chilean] dreadnought orders", "Third Brazilian dreadnought" (for the three they correspond to, no suggested changes to the others)? What do you think?
Also, I'm no opponent of non-repeating references in general, but I think the paragraph "At the beginning of the Second World War, ..."'s references get a bit lost because of the blockquote. Might it be a good idea to repeat the references next to note "N" so the reader realises which reference(s) cover that bit? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm trying to show that there were three distinct phases in the race. I have no objection to changing them, though. As for your second point, I think I forgot to add references when I first wrote the section. Whoops. Thanks for pointing this out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was caught by surprise here. I wasn't aware that Ed was going to nominate this article so soon. Still, it's one wonderful piece of work and I can guarantee that all information here provided is correct. --Lecen (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lecen! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few initial observations

  • Every one of your online sources that I have checked (about half), and every book that I possess that touches on the topic, capitalises "Dreadnought" as a class of battleship (in the way that, say, "Spitfire" is a class of fighter aircraft). Why have you adopted the lower case form?
  • Sources in foreign languages, such as Acorazado Almirante Latorre's Unidades Navales, should be identified as such.
  • Direct links to external sources should not be in the text (see end of "Catalyst" section).
  • There is a tendency to use citation strings (three, four, five in a row), sometimes to support fairly straightforward factual statements. Examples: "Even the departure of Moreno was marked by mishaps, as the ship sank a barge and ran aground twice.[95][96][97]"; "she was formally purchased on 9 September after the British Cabinet recommended it four days earlier.[76][101][102][103]". This leads to some unnecessary clutter in the texts; I am sure that not all of these citations are necessary.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • That is a very unsatisfactory answer; please don't try to insult my intelligence. "Dreadnought" is not a general category noun similar to "truck" or "van"; it was an invented name, a nickname, to designate a specific type of warship with enhanced armaments. I have mentioned the parallel with "Spitfire"; another might be the name "Big Bertha" which depicts a type of First World War howitzer. As I have said, "Dreadnought" is capitalised in mainstreamm history books, and in all or nearly all of the online sources you are using. The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary gives "Dreadnought" as the usual form. Are you seriously saying that all these are "simply people who don't know how proper and common nouns work"? There may be a case for using the lower-case form, but I suggest you give a little more thought and reason to your reply; I also await your responses to two other points. Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ngram from books.google.com, definition from Oxford dictionaries, M-W. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, I wasn't insulting your intelligence. Like I said, "dreadnought" is a common noun, like "truck" and "car". The Supermarine Spitfire is a proper noun, because it refers to a specific type of airplane, and is not analogous to "dreadnought", which refers to a general type of warship, the same as "armored cruiser", "destroyer escort", and the like. A more accurate relationship would be "Spitfire is to fighter as HMS Bellerophon is to "dreadnought". As to the other two points, I'll leave those to Ed, whose FAC this is. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further hijacking this comment, please review MilHist style guide; perhaps Ed should consider a redirect from South American battleship race? Kirk (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a tough one, as there was an earlier battleship race between Argentina and Chile in the 1890s (see the background to this article). Perhaps a dab page? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Parceboy, above: "Like I said, dreadnought" is a common noun" is merely your opinion; it does not become fact by reiteration and is disputable. I have referred to several authorities which favour capital D - let me give you another. The Shorter OED gives three definitions for "dreadnought": a heavy overcoat; a fearless person; a class of battleship. It gives the first two with lower case and the third with "D". I won't bother to cite more evidence, though I could. What I want is an answer to my original question: "Why have you adopted the lower case form", especially when sources that you quote capitalise it? Can you, or someone else, please answer this? Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think three people answered you already so I will summarize: dreadnought as a common noun is used in multiple sources cited in this article, its the form used in multiple dictionaries linked by Dank, and its consistent with the project's style guide. Yes, capitalization of military terms is not consistent across all sources but I believe Ed has met the requirements of our project's style guide. Kirk (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example: dreadnought describing the Rio de Janeiro, in Conway's All the World's Ships
Also, I randomly checked 8 books in our library for the term - 3 used 'dreadnought', 4 used 'Dreadnought' and one didn't have the term. Two were books by John Keegan, and each one used a different capitalization so even some authors/editors can't stay consistent! Kirk (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that the printed Shorter OED does not say what the online version, linked above, says. But let that pass; your answer seems to be that both the lower case and capitalised versions are widely used, and you have come down in favour of the former. That's OK; you could have just said this when I initially asked. There are two other questions (see above) still unanswered (citation strings and in-text external link). I am also doing a prose review, and will post here soon. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my printed sources use the lowercase 'd'. Most of the online sources in this article are from 1905 to 1914ish, which was possibly before the term came into widespread use as a common noun. The citation strings tend to support different parts of the sentence. To use your first example, the sunken barge, running around once, and running aground twice are all different sources. The in-text external link is there because I don't have newspapers in the bibliography, meaning that readers would have to search for a link in the 150-odd list of citations (for why it's in-text, see my above reply to Parsecboy). Thanks for the review, Brian, and I look forward to your comments on the prose. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that citation strings arise when the facts in a sentence require different citations. The problem can be reduced by bunching; for example, refs 41 to 44 could be bunched into a single citation, which would help to unclutter the text. I will do this for you experimentally; if you don't like it please revert, but you may feel it helps the reader. On the in-text external link, in what way is this different from the several other NYT citations you have? Why is this treated differently? As to my prose comments I will post these to the talkpage, otherwise this page will become unduly congested. Brianboulton (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue I have is with consistency (bunching some together but not all). I could bunch all of them but there's be a bunch of repeated citations. The in-text link arise because Chicago 13.68 says "The source of a block quotation is given in parentheses at the end of the quotation and in the same type size." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't covered referencing issues and don't know for sure, but there's some inconsistency in your referencing at the end of your block quotes, Ed. Also, I'm perfectly happy to cite Chicago's Chapter 5 on grammar and usage; I can't argue one way or the other for how we treat the other chapters, I haven't kept track. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used a short cite for the last block quote because the book was used in an earlier block quote. Should I expand it? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, what's your preference? - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded them for the moment, at least. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding. My position is that there should be one consistent referencing style for the article. I fail to see why the citation at the end of the blockquote in the "Catalyst" section is in the form of an external link, when elsewhere there are many standard citations to the New York Times and to other newspapers. Nor do I see a justification for the citations at the ends of the other blockquotes being in non-standard form. These should all be in short citation form, for consistency in accordance with MOS. This is an issue I believe must be addressed before the article is promoted. If you disagree, I suggest you ask Nikkimaria to adjudicate—she is wise on sourcing issues. I must apologise again for not having got very far with my prose review, details posted to the article talkpage. The points I raised there have been properly addressed; I doubt I'll have time to do much more in the course of this review, but would not wish to delay the promotion on that account. Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've had plenty of delays too. I've been following Chicago almost to the letter (only a couple exceptions e.g. ISBNs, JSTOR #'s, etc. aren't in Chicago, but I feel that they are necessary to fulfill Wikipedia's mission), and the blockquotes follow the style given by that style guide in Chapter 13. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Actually, Eagle wasn't flush-decked at all as she had a prominent island. But she was the fastest large hull available to the Brits at that time that didn't require an expensive full-scale reconstruction to convert to an aircraft carrier.
  • What's a shipwright?
  • Why is there a hyphen here: New-York Tribune?
  • What about Argentine post-war naval expansion plans? I know that they received a number of G-class destroyers from the Brits in the late 1930s.
  • Combine cells rather than use ibid. Every cell other than ship and country needs cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A number of items listed that are unclear as to whether they've been addressed. Attempting to sort it out, I checked the article and still see spaced ellipses-- not recommended by WP:MOS. Could you please clarify above what is done and not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everything has been addressed now. Spaced ellipses were answered above; Chicago recommends them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a settled issue on WP, Ed, at FAC and elsewhere. I've changed them to three dots per WP:ELLIPSES. I have no objection if you like Chicago formatting, but you can also add the formatting you like, then self-revert, so that you'll have a version that conforms to Chicago that you can point people to. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says: "Argentina's two dreadnoughts were handed over in 1915, as the United States remained neutral in the opening years of the war." That doesn't make sense without context. Also, the first paragraph of "Historiography" is uncited. Ucucha (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I missed this on my watchlist. I've resolved the ambiguity you mention – thanks! I can cite that paragraph if you'd like to challenge the information, but it's really a summation of many of the sources listed in the bibliography, so I'd essentially be citing the entire page range of each source. The sentence I can't cite from the article's references, "General maritime histories on the period (c. 1904–14) avoid the area and focus on the traditional powers, especially the Anglo-German arms race.", is pretty obvious to anyone who has read any popular maritime history book on the 20th century, so I don't think it needs a source. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that sentence. I'd like to hear some reviewers' opinions on whether or not the historiographical paragraph constitutes original research—I'm not sure. Ucucha (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that it's borderline, but it's just an extension of what I've done for the rest of the article. I'm simply drawing out facts from the various books, just in a different way (not historical facts, but facts from the books themselves). I'd welcome other assessments though, as I can see how others can think it is OR. As far as I know, there is no published historiography of the dreadnought race, even within a larger work; Morgan includes one for the Revolt of the Lash, but for the purposes of historiography, that is an entirely separate event. I may be able to include a bit more from Haag to address some of your concerns, but I'll need time to go back through his article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the books are secondary sources if you use them for facts about the race itself, but primary sources if used for historiographical analysis. Primary sources aren't necessarily unacceptable, though; I'll wait to see what others have to say. Ucucha (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.