Talk:ARA Rivadavia

Improved version of this article

Hi, I've been working for a while on this article, but decided to at least release it initially as a a "stub". When I finish the improved version, will replace the stub.
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who has been working on the two Brazilian Minas Geraes-class battleship, so I'm at least slightly familiar with Moreno and Rivadavia and have been deliberating over whether or not to work on them. However, if you already have them mostly done, I'll step aside; otherwise, I'm going to expand this version of this article for a DYK for you and me. ;) Please ping me if you would like to collab and get this through GA/A/FA. :) Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, good to meet you; well done with the brazilian battleships! Glad to collaborate together, I've left you a longer message in your Talk Page. I'd like to finish my "improved" version of the articles related to the argentinian battleships, as a basis for getting them to at least "GA". Cheers, DPdH (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:ARA Rivadavia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. The lead should be expanded to summarize the entire article, including the backgroung and design sections.
   2. "She was the lead ship of her class; her sister ship was Moreno." -This doesn't seem as important as the dates of the ships construction, etc. It should be moved down in the lead.
   3. Something is wrong with one of the templates in the infobox.
   4. Why didn't the ship see service in World War II? Briefly discuss the politics of Argentina's nnuetrality during the war.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet

   1. "saw no active service". -Needs a ref.
   2. "virtually the end of her active career" -needs a specific page number for a ref.
   3. The further reading material should be in {{cite book}} templates.
3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

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

   Pass No problems there.

7. Overall:

   On Hold until a few minor issues are resolved. For the most part, the article looks very well done! -Ed!^(talk) 18:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, it took a few days for me to get to it (real life intervened :), but I've expanded the lead a bit, fixed the template in the infobox and the citebook templates in the further reading section (although some are a little empty at the moment). For the references, the_Ed will have to fix those, since he put them in (I think). I'll give him a poke to remind him. Parsecboy (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

References have been added. Sorry for the great delay; I thought I had added them a few days ago! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The new references satisfy my concerns with the article, so it now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! -—Ed!^(talk) 13:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Spacing

If you want spacing, change the elements. Your mode of operation died out a couple of years ago when CSS was invented. So stop. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

take this to the navbox-level and stop disrupting these articles.  —Portuguese Man o' War 14:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That shows that you don't understand the issue: The navbox can't change anything. If you prefer a space in front of any navbox, you have to take it there. Otherwise, you will create a look that is not unified across pages. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is common practice across ship articles. We have plenty of looks that don't conform across Wikipedia; for example, this article uses Chicago style when the great majority of Wikipedia uses our in-house style (e.g. Template:Cite book). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I non-randomly picked Arizona, Howe and Deutschland, checked all ship articles and found not a single style-breaking space of this kind.

Existing errors are no excuse for adding more.

If you want to have more space in front of the navboxes, change the navboxes. Anything else is more work, disrupts style, hampers accessibility and looks plain ugly.

What is your reason to change thousands of ship's articles instead of changing a few dozen? --79.223.30.75 (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"This is common practice across ship articles." Checked a few other ones, couldn't find a single instance. So I would like to use your argument: Let's use the common practice and get rid of the style-breaking space. (Note: I have to admit that I think this is a very weak argument, but it's the first one you mentioned, so you seem to like it.) --79.223.30.75 (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Quote WP:MOS "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason. Revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." (emphasis mine). So let's put all that energy to something more constructive, maybe like contributing to an article or something. GermanJoe (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You quote is too long: "Where more than one style is acceptable [...]", and patching spaces by inserting HTML comments certainly is not. If you'd actually used a style (eg. by changing navboxes), we wouldn't have this discussion. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Then please point the editors, who actually contribute to the articles in question (not me, i have no horse in that race by the way) to the relevant MOS-guideline. HTML-insertions are accepted (WP:HTML), style variations are accepted (see WP:MOS). "I don't like" is not a substantial reason. GermanJoe (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, you think I wasn't able to say more than "I don't like it?" Maybe actually reading my comments would help. You are no alone though, most reverts are commentless, which I think is a wee bit disrespectful. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

i understand the issue just fine; the comment marks are a local hack for a presentational issue with navboxes that some editor(s)—not i—have dealt with locally; you're a fresh-off-the-boat IP (got an account?;) that's going all in-your-face. you're at 3rr, are disruptive, and i'll be reverting you in a moment. /raise your concern at the *navbox* level./ you're not earning any respect with this approach.  —Portuguese Man o' War 20:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Rivadavia was sold to an Italian ship breaking company for US$2,280,000

Can this be true? The article says that the ship had already be cannibalized before - so 2.3 Mio USD just for the metal, that still had to be towed around the world? That would have been 85 USD per ton in the 1950s when the USD had a much higher value than today ...--82.83.32.201 (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's what the source says. Keep in mind that steel like this was in very high demand after WWII. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Background:; last sentence

"Rivadavia and Moreno were ordered from the Fore River Shipbuilding Company in the United States.[1][10] it was not true"

WHAT was not true?Terry Thorgaard (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ach, it looks like that vandalism was reverted. Thank you for your keen eyes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ARA Rivadavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101102034637/http://www.revistadehistoria.com.br/v2/home/?go=detalhe&id=1307 to http://www.revistadehistoria.com.br/v2/home/?go=detalhe&id=1307

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ARA Rivadavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090605023722/http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Armada%20Argentina/HistoriaAcorazadosArgentinos.htm to http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Armada%20Argentina/HistoriaAcorazadosArgentinos.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)