:Talk:Russian battleship Retvizan
{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=17:27 17 April, 2011
|action1link=Talk:Russian battleship Retvizan/GA1
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=424551526
|action2=WAR
|action2date=11:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
|action2link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Retvizan
|action2result=approved
|action2oldid=585301492
|action3=FAC
|action3date=23:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Retvizan/archive1
|action3result=promoted
|action3oldid=593357177
|action4 = FTC
|action4date = 20:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
|action4link = Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battleships of Japan/archive1
|action4result = promoted
|ftname=Battleships of Japan
|currentstatus=FA
|maindate =October 23, 2019
|topic=war
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|
{{WikiProject Shipwrecks|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=mid|milhist=y}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=FA|A-Class=pass|OMT=1|Maritime=yes|Russian=yes|Japanese=y|WWI=yes}}
{{WikiProject Ships}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Mid|tech=yes|mil=yes|hist=yes}}
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=low}}
}}
Basis for the ''Maine''s?
This claim seems rather dubious - from Friedman, it seems that the only influence on the Maine design was to spur an increase to 18 knots - and it's also worth pointing out that the tender from NNS&DC was accepted, not the one from Cramp & Son. Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
:I've removed the claim - seems McLaughlin is confused, since the Cramp design wasn't chosen for the Maine class. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)