Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre[edit]

Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan]
Toolbox

Almirante Latorre was Chile's flagship and the most powerful dreadnought in South America from the 1920s to the 1950s. She served with the UK's Grand Fleet in the First World War as HMS Canada (1913), but was bought back by Chile in 1920. The dreadnought was primarily used as presidential transport during the 1920s, and participated in a major mutiny/rebellion in 1931. Deactivated in the 30s due to the Great Depression, she served through the Second World War – even garnering an purchasing offer from the United States after Pearl Harbor – and was active until 1951. She was scrapped in Japan starting in 1959. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: (apologies for the long list, most are just suggestions)
    • two dab links reported: [1];
    • no ext links, so none to be checked (no action required);
    • are there any images that could be added, even just to the infobox? (not a requirement, just a suggestion);
    • in the lead, "...quickly the instigator of a mutiny which the majority of the Chilean fleet quickly joined..." (needs tweaking due to repeated word "quickly");
    • "...three now-outmoded pre-dreadnoughts" (I think the use of "now" here creates a tense issue, perhaps you could just say "obsolescent"?)
    • "...now acquiring dreadnoughts, Chile responded..." (again the use of "now" I think is a tense issue - I might be wrong, though. I'd suggest just removing "now");
    • mixture of US and British English spelling - for instance "modernization" (US), "traveled" (US), "armour" (British) - please check for others also as I might have missed some;
    • sometimes you say "United Kingdom's Royal Navy" (e.g. in lead) and then "British Royal Navy" (e.g. in Background section) - seems inconsistent, only a minor point, though;
    • in the Construction section, "The ship that would become Almirante Latorre[N 2] was awarded to Armstrong Whitworth on 25 July 1911" - this sentence might confuse lay people, the ship was awarded (i.e. "given") to Armstrong Whitworth? "The contract to build the ship that would become..." might be a clearer way of phrasing;
    • in the Construction section, "...but despite a strong sentiment within Chile to sell the dreadnoughts..." (can you explain this sentiment, at the start of the paragraph it seems like there was concensus, at least in the National Congress to buy the ships, why did this then change?)
    • I think a linking clause is needed before this sentence: "On 9 September 1914, Almirante Latorre was purchased by the United Kingdom for use..." (At the start of the paragraph - i.e the topic sentence - the ship is being christened, but then suddenly it is being purchased by the UK. As such a linking clause such as "However, due to..." or something similar seems necessary here);
    • "...various capacities with the Grand Fleet during the war, including the Battle of Jutland." (I don't think the "various capacities" agrees with "including the Battle of Jutland" - i.e. the Battle of Jutland is not a capacity. Perhaps reword to "served in various capacities with the Grand Fleet during the war, and took part in a number of engagements including the Battle of Jutland";
    • in the Chilean service section, "...speech to senior naval officials to ensure them that his new government..." (I think "ensure" should be "assure");
    • "...After refueling at Port of Spain on the 28th..." (not sure about the use of the ordinal suffix here, per WP:DATESNO);
    • "Two 33-long-ton (34 t) tug boats were carried on the battleship's deck so they could be used in the harbors at Punta Arenas and Valparaíso" - is there any information about why this was necessary?
    • In the Mutiny section, "Just before 0000 on 2 September..." might be best to say "Just before midnight..." here as many readers won't recognise this;
    • In the Mutiny section, "...By the 6th..." (ordinal suffix as per above);
    • in the Later career section, "...and the Vice Admiral heading Chile's naval commission" (I think "Vice Admiral" should be lower case per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms;
    • in the Later career section, "...on the 25th" (ordinal suffix as per above);
    • "...and was taken to Yokohama, arriving there on 30 August 1959" - might need to specify "Japan" here as it makes it clearer (although I would hope most of our readers would know this already, some might not);
    • in the Footnotes, is it possible to add a citation for Footnote # 1 (the cost conversion)?
AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)>[reply]
Thanks AR, I think most of these are fixed, besides the one I don't have information on (the tug boats). I don't want to change 0000 because I'm afraid people will mistake the date – I think some people might think midnight of the day following. I removed the cost conversion per Moreno's FAC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Yet another great article Ed, but I think a bit more work is needed to get this to A class:
    • If no PD photo of the ship in Chilean service exists, I'd suggest making some use of File:HMS Canada 1914 - 1918.jpg
    • "Almirante Latorre was quickly the instigator of a mutiny" - the ship's crew instigated the mutiny, not the ship itself, and 'quickly' doesn't make much sense in this context
    • It would be helpful to clearly state in the second para of the 'Background' section that Argentina decided to purchase dreadnoughts - this is a bit unclear at present
    • Parliaments don't "give" money to government agencies - it's 'allocated'
    • What's the relevance of the weights of the destroyers and submarines ordered alongside the battleships? This seems to be unnecessary detail.
    • 'The ship' wasn't 'awarded' to the builder - the contract to build her was what was awarded
    • Did Greece want one or both of the battleships? The second last sentence of the 'Construction and purchase' section refers to a 'battleship' being sought and the last sentence refers to 'battleships' being considered for sale.
    • The material on the mutiny seems over-long; I'd suggest editing this so there's a tighter focus on the role played by this ship's crew
    • 'fortify' is an odd word to use in regards to the US Navy seeking to purchase this ship - I'd suggest something like 'reinforce' or 'bolster'
    • Am I right in reading the second para of the 'Later career' section to say that the battleship was reactivated at some stage after the 1930s? This is what's implied by saying that she was the Navy's flagship and 'active'. If so, can you provide the date she was returned to service? Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick! I think I've addressed all of your concerns barring the mutiny section and the last – I'll try to chop at the mutiny section asap, and details of her later career are ridiculously sketchy. The official history from the Chilean Navy's website doesn't even mention anything between the 1929 refit and her scrapping, while Schenia only mentions the United States purchasing attempt. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments largely addressed, and I'm sure that Ed will chop back the mutiny section as promised above Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate a quick check of my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Support
    • The lead seems a little awkward. Specifically this part: "Construction began soon after the ship was ordered in November 1911, and was approaching completion when she was bought by the United Kingdom's Royal Navy for use in the First World War and renamed HMS Canada. After being commissioned in September 1915, Canada served in the Grand Fleet for the duration of the war and saw action during the Battle of Jutland." Might be reworded thusly: "Construction began soon after the ship was ordered in November 1911, and was approaching completion when she was bought by the United Kingdom's Royal Navy for use in the First World War. Commissioned as HMS Canada in September 1915, she served in the Grand Fleet for the duration of the war and saw action during the Battle of Jutland."
    • The first paragraph in the 'Background' section seems a little abrupt... could more be added to it (or some linking phrases used)?
    • The use of parenthesis in this sentence seems unnecessary to me: "She was officially ordered on 2 November 1911, and was laid down less than a month later (27 November)", might it just be reworded "laid down less than a month later on 27 November?; and
    • Did Canada see any further service during the First World War after Jutland? I accept the bulk of this can be covered in the HMS Canada article but I believe this section could still summarise this service a little further. Anotherclown (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I didn't see your comments on my watchlist. Thanks for pitching in and helping, Dank. As to your last point, AC, I believe that the Roal Navy was kept on patrol after Jutland. I'll ping Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) just to be sure. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have little significant detailed info on the activities of the RN dreadnoughts after Jutland. She's not mentioned by name in the official history after the battle so I'd have to presume that she patrolled and trained with the rest of them. I did add some extra info from Burt to the article so see how that reads. But on a more serious note, why hasn't HMS Canada been merged into this article? I see little reason for it to exist as an independent article, especially given the paucity of info available on her wartime experiences.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Sturm! That's a good question – I found the articles split, so I was going to leave them like that. Would we have enough coverage on the ship's WWI service as it stand right now? Most books I've gone through on Google Books only mention her participation in the battle. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • What I've added to this article is the bulk of what is known about her service during the war. Her squadron provided distant cover during 2nd Heligoland, IIRC, but I have no idea if she herself was there or refitting. The same is true for most every British BB during the war. I think that you can profitably merged the Canada article into this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • No worries, if the info doesn't exist thats no drama IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall this is an excellent article. I still think the first paragraph in the Background is a bit stubby but that shouldn't hold up the review. Happy to support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Chilean_battleship_Almirante_Latorre&oldid=1217235036"