Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Braunschweig-class battleship/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2019 [1].

Braunschweig-class battleship edit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another class of German battleships, most of these were out of front-line service by World War I, but one, Hessen, was at the Battle of Jutland in 1916 (Hessen also remained in service until 1960 or so, having served under 4 flags). The article passed a MILHIST A-class review in April 2019, so it should be in pretty good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

  • outbreak of World War I in July 1914 prevented I do not think we need a "1914" here.
    • Removed
  • After the war, the five Braunschweig's were Shouldn't it be "Braunschweigs" instead of "Braunschweig's"?
    • Yeah, I don't know where that came from
  • Link both tonnes and long tons in both the infobox nor the body.
    • Done
  • Link full load in the body and the infobox.
    • Good catch
  • Link knots in the body and the infobox.
    • Done
  • Link PS in the body.
    • It is, but it's not abbreviated the first time - I suppose since "PS" isn't an obvious abbreviation for "metric horsepower", it's probably best to just not abbreviate it
  • Optional The ships' main armament was increased remove "the ships" with "their".
    • Works for me
  • at a muzzle velocity of 820 meters per second (2,700 ft/s) Link both m/s and ft/s here.
    • Done
  • for a maximum range of 16,900 metres (18,500 yd), while the British metres.
    • Fixed
  • lower range of 14,500 metres (15,900 yd) Same as above.
    • Fixed
  • for a maximum range of 9,090 metres (9,940 yd) Same as above.
    • Fixed
  • Our Kaiser here is overlinked.
    • Fixed
  • making visits to Spain, the Canary Islands, and the Azores Maybe mainland Spain? Because the Canary Islands are part of Spain too. And add Portugal after the Azores.
    • Done
  • Lothringen was to be reduced to reserve in July 1914 and Preussen I think we do not need a second 1914 in this paragraph.
    • Removed
  • Link Denmark, Norway, Spain and Serbia with the Kingdom of Serbia's article.
    • Linked Serbia, but the equivalent for Spain is Restoration (Spain), which seems a little WP:EGGy to me, and Norway and Denmark are both currently the same countries, which the MoS advises against linking
  • into a training ship, and on 20 August 1917 Remove 1917 here.
    • Done
  • Link Kiel in the body.
    • Done
  • Link Soviet Union in the body.
    • Done

Par two Just to be sure I will have another look in the article.

  • In addition, the 17 cm guns Remove "In addition" and replace with "Also".
    • Done
  • were propelled by three shaft triple-expansion steam engines Missing hyphen between "three shaft".
    • Fixed
  • Germany had limited access to high quality coal Same as above needs a hyphen between high quality.
    • Done
  • introduced, in order to increase the burn rate Maybe remove "in order" here? It sounds better.
    • Done
  • apparent that the mine clearing had taken too long Needs a hyphen between mine clearing.
    • Done
  • replaced as flagship by the battleship You mean "as a flagship"?
    • No, there's no article needed there (and "a" would be the wrong one in any event)
  • in poor condition and in dire need Don't think that the second "in" is not necenssarry?
    • No, "in poor condition and dire need" wouldn't work, IMO
  • Preussen, Lothringen, and Hessen continued on as guard ships in the Baltic Maybe remove "on" here.
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, CPA Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey BB I just made some more comments here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a god or a dictator to not listen to my fellow editors like you BB who have opinions especially in my non-English native ears. It looks great here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I reviewed this at Milhist ACR, and went through it with a fine-tooth comb then. I have a few comments:

  • "Previous designs had carried the 24 cm guns in the superstructure" in what, multiple gun turrets or casemates?
  • in general, the decision of the design staff about the set-up of the secondary battery needs better explanation at this point. Was the smaller battery on the main deck in casemates or turrets? How was it to be laid out? I realise this is explained later, but given it is being discussed here, it needs to be better explained.
    • See if how I've reworked it sounds good for you
  • repetition "as many countries' navies" and "many navies"
    • Fixed
  • "increasing the thickness of the armor protecting the secondary battery" this is the same question about the set-up of the secondary battery. Casemates?
    • Clarified
  • given PS and ihp are indistinguishable at this level, perhaps force or add kW as a conversion in the infobox?
    • Done
  • "12 in (30 cm) guns" it seems weird to use the reverse conversion just for these foreign guns
    • Good point
  • depress down is unnecessary, depress will do
    • Fixed
  • 1820 shells→1,820 shells
    • Fixed
  • go through and check all metres are meters
    • Fixed per CPA's comment above
  • any info available about the performance and range of the torpedoes?
  • casemated guns had gunshields?
    • Yeah, they rotated with the gun in the casemate
  • you could put the conning tower armour in the infobox
    • Good idea
  • "but they saw no action"→"but it saw no action" as we are talking about the squadron here
    • Good catch

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • add a location for Philbin?
    • Good catch, added
  • do Koop & Schmolke and Weir not add anything?
    • I haven't read Koop & Schmolke - it's not widely available, but I suspect it would be useful for those who can get a copy. Weir provides context on the building programs, government-industry relations, Imperial German politics, and such, that doesn't really belong in the article but might be of interest, so I figured it would be worth including in the further reading section.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Sources review edit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats
  • ISBNs should be in a single uniform format (see Dodson 2014)
  • Fixed
  • Citations 18 and 23 refer to "Hildebrand, Röhr & Steinmetz Vol. 2", but in the references this is listed as Vol 3.
  • Good catch
  • Quality and reliability: The sources appear to be comprehensive, and to meet the required quality criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel edit

  • Why are the main guns the only ones in the infobox to get a designation?
    • Good question
  • Several roundings for the conversions require fixing.
    • Fixed the torpedoes and the CT side armor - is there anything else?
  • increased from four 24 cm (9.4 in) guns in previous designs, compared with the 30.5 cm guns used on many foreign ships. redundant
    • Removed
  • Hyphenate Marine type boilers
    • Done
  • Link cylindrical boilers to Scotch marine boilers
    • Done
  • Link funnel, metric horsepower, sec
    • The first two already are - what's "sec"?
  • What's unstable steering?
    • All Groner says is "Unstable steering caused an additional distance of .5nmi per hour to be run; this extra distance...explains the shorter range."
  • There are a fair number of redundant conversions
    • Removed a few, not sure if I got them all
      • You converted the armament sizes in the lede, but that can be treated as a different thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest moving the bit about hydraulically operated turrets to two sentences previous, right in front of the turret designations.
    • How about where I put it?
      • Better, but it's still a subordinate clause. I think "hydraulically operated twin-gun turrets" reads better, but I'm sometimes idiosyncratic about such things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That works for me
  • The main battery had a total of 340 shells, Awkward, suggest something like "the ships carried a total of 340 shells, 85 per gun"
    • Works for me
  • 140 mm (5.5 in) forward and aft "fore and aft"?
    • Sure
  • extended from the fore to aft main battery turrets awkward Perhaps "extended between the fore and aft main-gun turrets"?
    • Done
  • Down to service history, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link the headers in the table and guard ship
    • Done
  • Schmidt decided to withdraw his forces when it became apparent that the mine-clearing had taken too long, and there was not sufficient daylight left for the minelayer Deutschland to lay a minefield of its own. It's unclear here what the situation is. The Germans wanted to clear the Russian minefields so they could lay one of their own?
    • Yeah, they wanted to clear the Irben Strait (the western entrance to the gulf) and mine the path through Moon Sound (the northern entrance) - have clarified this
  • When these ships were disarmed weren't their guns reused by the Army?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Braunschweig-class_battleship/archive1&oldid=908477672"