The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after being driven mad, some survivors of the Brazilian cruiserBahia jumped off of their rafts and were eaten by sharks?
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
The line The small fleet sailed on 31 July for the British colony of Sierra Leone, utilizing almost nothing that was Brazilian aside from the ships themselves and the men crewing them. could be worded better. I'm assuming it means their provisions were supplied by other countries, but it's pretty vague right now.
In the "Modernization" section, you should probably have a note explaining the discrepancy in the years she was modernized.
Isthis the Madsen machine gun we're talking about?
She traveled 101,971 mi (164,106 km) in 357.5 days strikes me as odd; why not just round it up to 358 days?
Itcontains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a(tagged and captioned): b(lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c(non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
aPass/Fail:
Everything looks pretty solid, just the few minor things I pointed out above. This will also serve as my A-class review for MILHIST; once everything is kosher here, I'll support the article over there. Nice work Ed! Parsecboy (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done, though you may want to check my wording on your first point; I'm not happy with the wording (I wasn't before either, but I can't find a better way to present the information). —Ed(Talk • Contribs)21:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wording looks better, but I don't think it's 100% quite yet. I might see if I can smooth it out a bit. Also, I think you missed the line about the year discrepancy for modernization. Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Are you sure that your entry on the Brazilian cruiser Bahia has the correct launching date? Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 and the Brazilian Navy's official site have the date as 20 April 1909. It'd be nice to clear this up, because I am currently writing a Wikipedia article on the ship!
Cheers,
<name removed>
Hi,
The dates from builders' records are very clear - 20 January 1909 for BAHIA, 20 April 1909 for her sister RIO GRANDE DO SUL. This would tie in with the order of build. BAHIA was yard number 809, laid down 19 August 07, RIO GRANDE DO SUL laid down a fortnight later and commissioned two months later than BAHIA.
Conway has reversed the launch dates for the two ships - not an uncommon occurrence in naval books, including Jane's Fighting Ships.
Having said that, the builders' records are backed up by the 1914 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships - BAHIA January 1909, RIO GRANDE DO
SUL April 1909. Not always a good source but much more contemporary and, in this case I believe, correct.
Image copyright review - All image copyrights appropriate. Feel free to move this comment to the FAC page when this goes up. NW(Talk)21:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remains the biggest accident of Brazilian Navy[edit]
The lead section says 120,000 mi / 190,000 km in 358 days, the article body says 101,000 mi / 164,000 km. I assume the former is a mistake. --dab(𒁳)13:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of them shot it down, but also accidentally hit the depth charges on the stern—a direct consequence of the lack of guide rails that would normally prohibit the guns from being aimed at the ship.
Such accessories were not usual at the time the ship was built, it being assumed that most trained gunners could be relied upon to cease firing as soon as their line-of-fire approached that of their own ship. While such incidents did happen, they were very rare and usually only occurred during intense action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.163 (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Modernization and inter-war years -- "embarked"?[edit]
The word "embarked" is used several times in this section (haven't checked the rest of the article) in a way I find confusing. I looked it up, to make sure I wasn't missing something, and I remain convinced that the word should be replaced with "aboard" or "on board," or rephrased using the word "carrying." The following sentence, already unwieldy, is further encumbered by the use of "embarked":
From 17–22 May 1935,[33][34] Bahia and Rio Grande do Sul[N 7]—joined at an unknown point by the Argentine battleships Rivadavia and Moreno, the heavy cruisers Almirante Brown and Veinticinco de Mayo, and five destroyers[34]—escorted São Paulo, with Brazilian President Getúlio Dornelles Vargas embarked, up the Río de la Plata (River Plate) to Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina.
I wondered about the same thing. The link goes to a page about the company that manufactured the gun. That page has a link to a disambiguation page that lists 7 different Hotchkiss machine guns. Looking through those, only the M1914 lists a 7 mm caliber/cartridge (from Mauser). However, the M1922 doesn't list any calibers at all, so I don't feel confident changing the link to the M1914 gun on this basis. Does anyone have any idea which gun was installed? Gms3591 (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Brazilian cruiser Bahia. 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:
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.
After WW II, at least five German U-boats reached Argentina with no less than 50 high ranking Third Reich officials on board.
During the trip they sunk a US Battleship and the Brazilian cruiser 'Bahia' with a death toll of more than 400.
--2001:E68:543D:905:681E:173C:AD75:D (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source for this account of why it sank?[edit]
Genuine question - complete novice here. Presumably, the account of target practice gone wrong comes from an eyewitness survivor? Would be good to explain this further. It's especially confusing at the moment given that the text describes survivors having thought they had hit a mine. But presumably the whole kite story must also have come from an eyewitness survivor? Some discussion of the sources would be good. Notyetlost (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
b(MoS): 
