The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On May 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Russian cruiser Rossia (1896), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Try posting on the WikiCup talk page and explain the issue. I'm not necessarily the best person to answer the question, but I will have a look at it when I get a chance. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Once you pass U-41 and I get U-40 to Ga status, all German Type IXA submarines will be at GA-class. With that in mind, could I nominate it for a GTC even though the "main article" is included in German Type IX submarine? The GTC template would look like this:
Would I have to create an article in the Type IXA submarines individually or would it pass anyway?--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 01:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
PS, sorry for the Nazi warflag image. If you consider it offenseive, I can remove it. I only used it as many other U-boat GT's use the nation's naval flag as the image.--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 01:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
edit conflict*2I think you'll need to GA the Type IXA part of German Type IX submarine, which would involve de-redirecting it. Buggie111 (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
No problem. I can just whip together another GA (and DYK) from the U-boats themselves. However, are you sure that I need to do that guys?--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 01:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Buggie111's right, although I'm not at all sure that I want separate class articles for all the U-boat variants. I'd ask about that on WP:Ships. I think that I'd prefer a simple List of Type IXA Uboats with a good introduction to the differences and brief summaries of the individual ships. See Parsecboy's list of German BCs for a guide. I could care less about the image, but I'd make sure that it's already used in German ship articles to avoid any issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
How can I geta list to GA status? It would have to be a FL would'nt it? Other than that, I agree with you.--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 01:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't remember, but I do know that we handle lists differently than most projects. Look at the article history for List of German battlecruisers to see how Parsec did or you could just ask.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
OK thanks. And if you forgot about the message above this thread, I'm done with the GA review for U-41. If you could check over it that would be great! Thanks.--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 02:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ant-36side.jpgedit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for uploading File:Ant-36side.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Also Sturm, I saw that you were using {{Sclass}} for this one, {{Sclass2}} is what you should be using because Admiral is not the name of the lead ship, but instead the general theme of the names of the class. This probably means that you need to go through the article and un-italicize Admiral where it appears. -MBK004 00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
So, we're not supposed to italicize theme class names?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
to be a little more discursive at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga than usual about what I'm doing and about the trade-offs and judgment calls? I'm asking permission because I think the job of a copyeditor generally includes not drawing attention to their own work, but every once in a while, I should be as open as possible to see if everyone is on the same page, so to speak. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Sturm, I wanted to let you know I've reviewed the article (the review is here). The only real problem is with one of the images, which I've noted on the review page. I think Ed will be able to help us out with the answer. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Quick explanation. I changed "2 Parsons turbines" to 2 "paired sets" as a sort of minimal change. But I think "paired sets" still isn't great. Usually when you say "set," that implies 2 or 3 turbines acting as stages that are combined into a single assembly through reduction gearing. That's not really the case with direct-drive turbines. So in Lion's case, the turbines work together only in the sense that one takes steam from another. So it's really more accurate to say it had 4 turbines. But if you prefer "paired sets," that works too. Just my 2 cents.
I understand, but I'm going with my source's phrasing which says one turbine set driving two shafts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On May 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Admiral class battlecruiser, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion
I've expanded the service record section even more and I've added another comment to the ACR itself. Just wanting to let you know :)--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't know why people are opposing this, but I don't think that you're helping your case by complaining so much about it. Expanding the article is good, but have you incorporated material from any of the other sources that I mentioned yet? And are there any other sources about it in other languages like Russian, German or Italian? Google Translate can be your friend. I think you've covered the ship's wartime service reasonably well considering how little it did, although exact dates would be nice, so I'd focus more on its peacetime service and see what you can fill in. Are there any more intelligence reports? Have you checked each year of Brassey's and Jane's Fighting ships for any essays that might talk about that year's training exercises? What did the ship do during the 1st and 2nd Balkan Wars? This sort of stuff.
I'm facing a similar problem with my article on HMS Agincourt. During the entire war I only know its exact location about once per year and I'm horribly vulnerable to failing for lack of completeness because I can't answer if it was refitting or sailed with the fleet during the two major sorties by the Grand Fleet in 1917 and 1918. And I'm realizing that I'm going to have this very same problem with most all of the other British BBs despite buying the five-volume official history. I might be able to get these articles up to GA if I'm lucky, but these are the sorts of things that prevent me from even thinking about a ACR unless I find some source that will detail a reasonably complete history for me. I've come to accept that some articles will never make FA or A-class because the sources simply aren't good enough so I tend to write only about stuff that I have good sources for unless I'm willing to accept that I can't get a GA or even a B out of it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've been waiting to see this show up on the someone's talk page, because I didn't want to get into on the ACR. You've got quite a few grammatical errors in the article. Other than that, I see nothing wrong with it per se (although it is brief). But if there is nothing more there is nothing more. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
If I am correct, Habsburg did nothing in the Balkan wars because she was being modernized along with Arpad. Thanks for fixing the typos Auntieruth55. Like you said, there litterally is nothing more. The fact that there are 3+ opposes becasue of lack of info is rediculous IMHO. How can there be a lack of info when there is no info to lack mentioning? IF really did everything I can but I'll still try. I"m not going to give up until it passes or is failed due to too many opposes.--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 01:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
One oppose will fail the article. And I will point out that anything to do with Arpad's modernization isn't really relevant to an article on Habsburg, even if they are sisters. Do you have any more details on what exactly the modernization consisted of?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well it looks like both will fail then. I won't give up but Dank is likely to not budge based off of his comment. By modernization, it was just stripping down the superstructure to mkae her a smaller target. However that took a while (what with funding and the labor itself)--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 01:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
It might be useful to take a look at some of the A-class and FA articles in OMT so you can see what kind of thing passes the reviews and also what the reviewers are looking for.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
That may be a good idea. And in your opinion. Should I withdraw the two noms? Are they doomed with such little information?--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 01:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Candidly, they're dead in the water in their current state. That said if you manage to get some more material covering their careers in more detail I'd resubmit, but compare them to the existing high-grade articles and see if they match up first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sigh...Ok then. Can youi please remove the noms. I've got to get some sleep. It's late here. IF not then I guess the ACR can linger on for 20 more hours until I get back on. Thanks for the help. I guess I'll have to keep working on GA's until I get a copy of Conway's from the library some day. (If ever, my small-town library may be going under if someone does'nt save it)--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 02:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
You would need to ask a current coordinator to do so since Sturm is no longer one. Please leave a note in the ACR for closure section at WT:MHCOORD and we will take care of the request post haste. -MBK004 02:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Have you checked into Interlibrary Loan? Most public libraries participate, although some do charge for it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
No, I have'nt the time! I'm so buisy that it's a miracle that I can still edit this place right now. And thanks MBK, I'll go ask there.--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 10:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm thinking of working on it myself actually - its indirectly related to my current RL work and I've already visited 3 times this year! Lemme know if you start – equally I'll let you know if I do (when my life calms down a bit). Cheers for the GA, Ranger Steve (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I need to get my copy of the Black Battlefleet out of storage before I begin any of the British ironclad articles. Hopefully sometime soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On May 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Russian cruiser Gromoboi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I've got several refs on it, if you need any help taking it to G/FA. Buggie111 (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the offer, but I think that I've got all that I need. OTOH, if you see something of interest in your sources that isn't covered let me know and we can discuss it, either here or on the talk page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, a glance at Anatomy of a Ship: Dreadnought, my main ref, seems to give in detail each of the designs proposed by Fisher and the others, plus giving all of her stats down to how much food she would carry at normal, deep and extra deep water. Not much on service history though. The rest of the book is pics of every piece of equipment on that thing. I've also got a paper on the n2 law and several (~4 or 5) general books on battleships which have info on Dreadnought. I might also ahve some facts in other books about ships of the same era. Buggie111 (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
And, if PArsec sees this, I've got the same book for Bismarck. Buggie111 (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've got the Anatomy of the Ship book on Dreadnought as well from ILL for a few more weeks so I think most of the bases are covered. Now I'm off to perform surgery on the article on Hood.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago29 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Sturm, I've got some comments and questions about stuff I didn't catch the first time around:
Cyrillic#Letterforms and typography doesn't show "Z" as a Cyrillic character, but I believe from reading the talk page over at Template:lang-ru that that requires Cyrillic characters. I'm talking about ({{lang-ru|TTZ}}).
Lemme double-check my source on that one.
Btw, assuming that English-language sources typically refer to this as "TTZ", you could always go with "The first Tactical-Technical Requirement (TTZ)". I'd understand that to mean "generally abbreviated TTZ in English-language sources, transliterated from the Russian". - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
MOS generally frowns on single quotes for most purposes, so I'm not sure if 'Stalin's Republics' is going to fly, I'll look into this. I believe it can fly (and recently did) for single letter designations ... the 'A' turret for instance. More to come. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I do need to read the MOS on the differences between double and single quotes to save work later on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've poked around, and for now I think double quotes are safer (I'll make the edit), but I'll keep an eye on this. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've got a slight preference, but only slight, for "Yamato class" over "Yamato-class battleships", and the same with Bismarck, only because we're repeating "battleships" a lot and I'm not sure that we need to, I think most readers will get it (and if they don't, they can click the link). Your FAC reviewer might decide that it's tighter without "battleships", I'm not sure. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I do use battleship a bit much I've deleted it in this case.
"although with significantly weaker firepower": the problem here was "they were" implies that they existed. "they would have had ..." can get old quickly; it would have been okay here, but "although" was tighter (and therefore more likely to fly at FAC). The reason "they were" etc. is okay in the design section is that it's the design section, so even when you don't say it explicitly, it's understood you're talking about what the design was calling for. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
You say "Project 23 ships" at one point ... if that works (your call), then it's preferable to "Project 23-class ships", mainly because of the hyphen but also because it's shorter. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I standardized them to -class ships.
I don't like it (too easy to misread), but OTOH I'm not sure people will care so let's leave it alone and see what happens. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sorry there's so much I didn't catch before this went to FAC, I'm reading it more closely after seeing more of the FAC reviews. "Construction of the other three ships was suspended shortly after Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, and did not resume after the end of the war in 1945.": I'd feel safer (at FAC) with ""Construction of the other three ships was permanently suspended shortly after ...", or "Construction ... 1941, and never resumed.", unless you want to draw attention to some event in or around 1945 where they might have decided to proceed, but didn't. I'm not seeing that in the text. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Some thought was given to completing the most advanced ship, but ultimately rejected (see the individual ship history). The other two were not even considered.
I changed "had begun" to "began"; when you use the past perfect, there has to be some event that comes up after that (or that is already precisely defined or implied) that you're drawing a connection to within a sentence or two. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Completely unrelated: I notice no one has responded at WP:SHIP#Thoughts on FAC. Did I come off as too much in the FAC "camp"? Was I too harsh? - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Lemme reread it and I'll let you know. Personally I don't mind grammatical corrections, etc. too much, although I often don't see the point. But I do mind bending to reviewer's perceptions of what is correct/best regarding facts. Like the little Kate/B5N dust-up I had in the Kaga ACR. He has a valid point and so do I, but I'm supposed to bend just because he has the power of the almighty oppose? I may send it to FAC even if it fails ACR as I think that's a really crappy thing to oppose over.
I'll reply to this over there. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Much more related: I'm just giving you these notes because you seem interested in copyediting questions; the publishing industry doesn't usually expect writers to produce something that copyeditors can't improve on, and I think you can make a good argument that if the writers are paying too much attention to this stuff, it distracts them from more important things. So ... I'll tell you anything you want to know, but I'll happily do it all again in future articles. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
This is fine, I just hope that I'm catching some of this stuff in my more recent articles so you don't have as much to do.
Thanks, but don't worry about it, you do great work. I see you have a big pile of ACRs to your credit, I'll be happy to help you get them through FAC if you want to do that ... although I don't personally go gaga over the little star, and if you're happy with them the way they are, that's fine too. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm not all that concerned about them really, but I have to play the game more than I used to since I'm in the WikiCup and my GANs seem to take a month or two to work their way through the GAR process. So I figure I'll stockpile my ACRs, with your help, and run up a new one once the previous one gets promoted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'll be happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Just curious; is it really transliterated "Sovetsky" more often than "Sovietsky" or "Sovyetsky"? That's how it's pronounced (in Russian, and presumably in English). - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Seems to be; there are a number of articles that use the same spelling, but I'm no expert on transliterating Cyrillic.
Okay. It's a pain that we have to learn the odd transliterations, but yes, please go with whatever the sources are using. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
"the ship model basin" implies that I know which one we're talking about, and I'm not sure that I do. "The [cityname] ship model basin" or "The navy's ship model basin" or "a ship model basin" would all work I think. Btw, note I'm not capitalizing "navy"; style guides are uniform on this kind of recommendation these days (different from 20 years ago, so possibly different from the capitalization in your sources). It's "The Soviet Navy" but "the navy" (even if you know it's the Soviet Navy). - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think that's a legacy of my source which specified which model basin was used. You're correct about the capitalization, but a lot of the stuff I read capitalizes it if a specific navy is implied rather than a generic navy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
AP Stylebook and Chicago and others insist on it, so that's clearly the direction we're heading, but these changes take a while to propagate. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
We need a link for "citadel", although the intuitive meaning (the part of the ship best protected by armor) is intuitive enough. It's not in the nautical glossary or Wiktionary (in that sense) and it's not an article. I'll just link the first occurrence for now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Quotes need to be quoted literally unless you use ellipses or brackets to indicate the differences; I'll fix the block-quote, but I'm not 100% certain FAC reviewers will like the long quote. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
"They produced a total of 201,000 ...": I'm guessing that's 3 of them together, not all 4, right? - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the fourth one was to go to the factory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
"relay the guns" gets only 15 ghits, and I can't tell what it means ... reload the guns? retarget the guns? - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
"Some effort was made to launch the hull, but little work had been done to dredge the river at the foot of the slipway and she was captured on 18 August 1941, although retreating Soviet troops slightly damaged her hull.": nothing wrong with this, it's just that it raises more questions than it answers. Why were they trying to launch the hull, particularly when the river hadn't been dredged? That seems odd. Is it important that slight damage was done to the hull? - Dank (push to talk) 12:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Okay I'm done, best of luck at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
I've just noticed a discrepancy in what we've written in the article. In "Design", you've said:
The battlecruiser's turbines were designed to produce 44,000 shaft horsepower (32,811 kW), which would propel the ship at 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph). However, during trials in 1913, Australia's turbines provided 55,000 shp (41,013 kW), allowing her to reach 26.89 knots (49.80 km/h; 30.94 mph). (Roberts, Battlecruisers, pp. 76, 80)
However, in the "Acquisition and construction" section, I've put:
When completed, she undertook speed trials: Australia was found to be capable of sustaining a speed of 26 knots (48 km/h) for eight hours, and reached a maximum speed of 27.48 knots (50.89 km/h). (Stevens, in Stevens & Reeve, The Navy and the Nation, p. 173)
I'm at work for the next few hours, but if I transcribe Stevens' words on the subject when I get home, can you compare them with what Roberts says...see if we can work out the discrepancy? -- saberwyn 23:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
P.S. We also have 25 knots in the infobox, which we could probably qualify with (as designed), but we might also need to change this. -- saberwyn 23:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
From The Navy and the Nation, p. 173:
Having had the damage [to the hull plates during launch] repaired, the battle cruiser completed a most successful full-power trial, maintaining 26 knots for eight hours, with 27.48 knots on her best run over the measured mile.
Roberts quotes a maximum 26.89 kn on the Polperro mile with 55,881 shp. No speed is listed for the 8-hour trial, but shp was only 48,420. Burt quotes 26.79 kn and 55,140 shp for the measured mile, but only 44,596 shp for the 8-hour trial. Now both Roberts and Burt likely only had access to whatever documents were in the UK so Stevens could be using some document from a RAN observer at the trials, but I think that the 27.48 kn figure is likely a bit high given her designed speed of 25 kn. If it had been that high something would have been mentioned in the British records. For a while I was inclined to put trial speeds in the infoboxes, but have since reconsidered and use the lower of the two as more likely representative of what the ship could do in service with a foul bottom, etc. Exceptions are best dealt with in the main body as we've done here. At any rate I'll be interested to see what Stevens cites in support.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
There's no specific cite given for Stevens' figures, so I've removed the line from the article. -- saberwyn 06:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Piggybacking here, I've decided (reluctantly) that I'm not going to be able to stay out of conflicts at FAC. I'll try to do the best job I can to help this article (HMAS Australia) pass, and if that results in changes you don't like, then my recommendation is to concede the point on the individual article, and we'll start a general conversation after the article is finished at WT:FAC. More often than not, the issue isn't as cosmic as people think it is, but if we see a lot of fundamental disagreements between SHIPS editors and FAC reviewers, we can simply present our positions at WT:FAC and lay out what we need and what the options are. I'm optimistic. I'll go do some editing now to address Tony's questions, and then come back here if I need to say something more than I say at in the FAC review. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I think we're in good shape now, apart from Tony's point 9, which I really can't help with, sorry. The point about "eleven" vs. "11" is a tough one. Older sources will typically write out "eleven", and we're never going to escape it entirely, because "eleven 12-inch guns" is so much easier to read than "11 12-inch guns"; currently, WP:MOS doesn't make an exception for that ... maybe it's best to leave details like this to MOSNUM. Tony's right that there's a distinct trend in professional writing these days not to write out 10 and above ... and that particularly goes for technical and scientific articles, and especially number-heavy ones like ours. We can try to get a change to MOS if you like ... some small change is definitely needed ... but I think for now, if we're taking something to FAC, we'll have to settle with the status quo, which is: either write out all numbers of two words or less (except when in front of a measurement or unit), or don't write out 10 and above. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
On the recent oppose ... do you have any objection to removing "(305 mm)"? That may be what they're objecting to, and the edit I made at MOS lets us take it out ... and may require that we take it out. - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
This is this kind of pettifoggery, just like the Kate thing, that just pisses me off. No substantial critique, just some little detail of presentation that engages some pinhead's attention so he wants to throw a monkey wrench in the process. Yeah, go ahead, but I'm going to put it back once it passes. What change in the MOS? I've been offline this weekend.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Never mind, I found it through Saberwyn's comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Sturm, did you get McLaughlin out of storage yet? I've blown through nearly all of my sources (only two left, not counting the ex links), and I'd like to have some stuff cited. Help? Buggie111 (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, no. I couldn't find the box that it was in. Hopefully I'm going back next week and get more stuff out of storage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ok Strum. Here's a deal. As you seem to be the only other editor interested in Russian BB's, I'll propose this to you: You try and find McLaughlin, and, in exchange, I can get you a host of sources in Russian to any articles of your choosing. Deal? Buggie111 (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well,not a host of always acessable sources, but notes are possible. Buggie111 (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Have you seen [2]? I might want some stuff translated from here if I can find McLaughlin this next trip.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sure, glad to do. Seems you don't trust Google. :P Buggie111 (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Sturm, could you please save your rewording until after it's DYK? Your dangling just within the limit (2480 is necesary, it's now at 2486). Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I added some, took some out. I'll hold off on deleting the bit about Messudieh being a pre-dreadnought (too early) as that would blow your limit.
You can tinker around with it now, but remember to preview. There's a 146 word buffer. OAH, you are gonna try to get the Mclaughlin next week, or later? Buggie111 (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've gotten it back into the limit. Buggie111 (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I left it seven words above the limit. Remember that abbreviations are your enemy when working on the bottom margin for a DYK; that one cheap way to make your 5x expansion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I just noticed you picked up the XTSF article. Thanks, I hope it isn't too short for GA (there really isn't anything else to say on the subject, though, barring a trip to Washington and digging through archives anyway...). :) - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 03:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've been meaning to give you a formal report, but this is really, really thin for a GA. I'd suggest that you elaborate its structure to try and fill it out as that's about all you can really do. Semi-monocoque structure, two-spar wing, whatever applies and can be lifted from the Tigercat's information. Give more exact references to the Tigercat, how much longer, wider, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Alright, thanks. :) Norton has, alas, gone back to the distant library from which it came, but I'll see what I can do. - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 13:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I forgot I had a scanned page of Norton to refer to, so I got some more info on size data from that, plus found some more info in Google Books and, on the F7F, on my own bookshelf, so it's been expounded upon a bit now. - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 15:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Just to let you know, I've reviewed the article for GA, there are just a few outstanding issues before I'll pass it. Unfortunately, one of those are the images. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
There's just one thing left on the review (the line on the speed for the central engine) that needs to be addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
As you commented on Bushranger's GRumman XTSF article and it's chances on a GAN, I'd like you to do the same thing to mine. What else would you like to see? Another img? More history? You can send me off onto anything. Buggie111 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, remember that I chose to review Bushranger's article for GA; I just hadn't actually gotten around to starting the review. But your article needs a copyedit. 381-millimeter gun needs a hyphen if the unit is spelled out; the easiest way to do this is to add |adj=on to your template. You have an inappropriate link to shafts; you need to link to propeller shaft as you already have a link to shaft horsepower. Put your refs in numerical order. It needs a full infobox; no matter that it was never finished. How many boilers did it have and of what type? What volume of Conway's are you citing? Your page number doesn't match my copy of 1922-1946. The stem is the bow, not the stern. That's all that immediately comes to mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Here's a point by point rebuttal:
Done
Still needs a copyedit.
As in sentance flow or flat out spelling? Buggie111 (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Done
Every time you use a compound adjective like 120-millimeter gun it needs a hyphen. So check for all other examples of guns and armor to see if they're compound adjectives.
Huh? Numerical order? Number of times I cite it?
It displays as cite 3, then 2, then 1 or whatever.
Done.
(long pause)Done
See references. I cite 1906 to Present, not 1922, and it was listed beforehand
Gimme a ISBN or OCLC #; you're citing a book that's unfamiliar to me.
Ah, that's All the world's battleships: 1906 to the present, superceded by a revised edition called Conway's Battleships in 2008. I'd advise you to get the newer edition, but that's not essential. But you do need to correct the title, etc of the reference.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Done
A full infobox, power, secondary armament, range, etc. Look at the one for Roma, forex. And it's understood that everything is planned; you don't need to spell it out.
I'll get power and so forth done soon.
Also, could you please relook the Reshadieh. I've added as much stuff as I could grab from my Conways, bar the Turkish batrooms. Any help?
Buggie111 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'll look at it, but I don't have much regarding them. That's why I never did much with the other one that I started. You need to get the Ottoman Steam Navy to get a fuller account of the ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Sturmvogel 66. You have new messages at Saberwyn's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Regarding the source I mentioned giving some data on the second (postwar) Dominion tour. -- saberwyn 03:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Well it's been a week and no new comments have come in. I belive that consensus has formed to show that such an article like this one is allowed. Would you like to continue your GAN of the article for me?--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 20:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Just to let you know, I've reviewed the article here - just a minor clarification is needed before I'll pass the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Hunter Kahn (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Two of last year's final 8, Theleftorium (submissions) and Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I understand (and appologise) that I'm badgering you now but if you're not going to review the IXA's then can you please give it to someone else to review? I need this for the WC and once this article is passed I'll be able to for the GTC for all Type IXA submarines.--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 00:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Sturmvogel, I've had time to copy those articles you were after. I don't have your email address though - could you please ping me an email? cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Cannone navali da 381 1914.jpgedit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for uploading File:Cannone navali da 381 1914.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On June 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Swordfish (1916), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
For being instrumental in the improvement of a large number of articles, including Good Topics concentrating around Russian battleships, British battlecruisers, and multitude of other articles on or relating to battleships or battlecruisers, for your incredible performance in both the WWI contests due in large part to your improvement of battleship and battlecruiser articles, and for your willingness to tackle such a wide variety of such articles, I hereby present you with the Titan's Cross in Bronze. Congratulations Sturmvogel 66, and keep up the good work. For the members of Operation Majestic Titan, TomStar81 (Talk) 22:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I gotta say that I was rather surprised that Sandy decided to ignore the furor over Navweaps.com.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:305cmBSG.JPGedit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for uploading File:305cmBSG.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the reminder. I'd been sitting on the article waiting for a copy of the Kronshtadt class article to get here to confirm the accuracy of that drawing. It's fixed now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Do you want me to add all the technical stuff or do you want me to scan the relevant pages and send them to you? Just be advised I'm in no hurry to work on these as I have plenty on my plate right now, but I can probably shift things around if you are. GA or A-class is fine if that's as far as you want to take them as I may have established a partnership with Cla68 for Japanese carrier articles for FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
No big rush on my end. Probably easier if you scan and email them, but that's a bridge we can cross when either one of us feels like starting work. -- saberwyn 05:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
You mentioned in your FLC for the battlecruisers of Russia that "McLaughlin, in three different articles or books, provides the most in depth coverage of the three designs" if that's the case then why "oppose" my FLC for the battleships of AH just because it is lacking info from a $130 book that simply re-states info that is already cited?--White Shadowsstood on the edge 21:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
You can't possibly know what Sokol's book could contribute to your FLC or your articles since you haven't read it. I haven't seen it myself and couldn't tell you either. I'm willing to let things slide at ACR or below, but not at FLC or FAC which are supposed to be the best articles we can produce. And since the book is in English and widely available it should be consulted. I've looked at a lot of general BB/BC books as well as books on the Imperial Russian Navy and found McLaughlin the best source overall for my Russian articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Very well then so how do you know that it is the "fundamental reference on A-H ships" if you have not read it? I certainly am not going to waste my own money ($130 BTW) on it. What I have read through GB is just repetition of what I've already stated in the article. If you insist that I include it, may I use it to cite already cited sentences?--White Shadowsstood on the edge 23:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I dunno how you can get it through Google Books as I can't get anything at all. Got a link? René Greger's Austro-Hungarian warships of World War I would be another good one to get and more likely to have ship-specific stuff as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
If you cannot even read a bit of it off of GB then why make such claims? Why oppose in the first place? Have you tried to look it up on GB? I can get a snippet view just fine...--White Shadowsstood on the edge 00:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Send me the link then, 'cause I can't get nothin'. Because you haven't researched the topic deeply enough for any FA or FL-class article, IMO. There are at least two books that should be consulted for any A-H ship article at FA level that you haven't looked at. Where are you that you can't borrow these books, anyways?
Here is the link to Sokol's book. Neither are at any library around where I am or live. And I think that "Because you haven't researched the topic deeply enough for any FA or FL-class article, IMO" is a belittleing comment IMO. I poured my heart and time into that list and anyone who thinks that someone who made 140 edits to a single page and thinks that way is gravely mistaken IMHO. How do you know that "There are at least two books that should be consulted for any A-H ship article at FA level" if you've never even taken a look at the pages inside of them?--White Shadowsstood on the edge 01:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Take it as you like. The amount of time and effort you put into the list is irrelevant; it's all about the quality of your sources and your prose. You've got a bunch of tertiary sources, but failed to use readily accessible books that would give your article a better foundation. Does your county or city library system not have access to ILL? If not then you're hosed if you want to produce FA-level work. I couldn't do it without books from other libraries. That snippet isn't enough to reach any kind of conclusion about Sokol; I thought you were getting more info from another edition or something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
The fact remains, Youhave not even taken a look at them and you think that they are needed. Why? since you don't accept snippets from this book, I'm done trying to address your oppose. I only hope that the FLc will pass without your !vote.--White ShadowsThere goes another day 02:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry I was starting to get out of hand in my replies. I'll still try to persuade you to support but you've gotta throw me a bone here! I don't have the book and there is literally no way that I can obtain any portion of it other than a snippet view in time for this FLC to close. What should I do?--White ShadowsThere goes another day 02:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'd suggest asking if anyone else can get at least a scan or copy of the relevant pages of Greger for you. It's not on Google Books. Look it up on OCLC/Worldcat and maybe it will be somewhere handy to one of the OMT members. That's probably more essential than Sokol for this list and I'd be satisfied if you got a hold of that. And it may well not change a single thing in your list, but you can't know that in advance. The first priority for any fact is that it be verifiable and you've met that standard. But the second thing is that it must be as correct as you can determine, and that you've not accomplished yet. Ever wonder why I've written so many GAs, but so few FA and A-class articles? It's mainly because I don't have the sources to take many of them any higher than GA. There's a whole book on the French Courbet and Bretagne-class dreadnoughts in French, but there's no copy in the United States (literally!) and I can't afford the 70 Euros it would cost to order it from France. And I'll oppose anybody's attempt to take any of those articles up to FA if they haven't gotten a hold of that book. I often chose what to write based on what source I have access to, not necessarily what I like. Forex, I have very little interest on pre-dreadnoughts of any type or nation, but I have very detailed sources close at hand so I've written a bunch of articles on them. Same with my submarine articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Parsec said that he ordered it from the ILL. Perhaps he's gotten a hand on it now. As for the other book, can we ask the members of OMT if they have it? There is really no way that I can get my hands on either for this FLC....--White ShadowsThere goes another day 03:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'd post the question on the OMT talk page, just like I've done for a copy of a book on Hood. It may not take so long as you fear. And even if it does, it's not the end of the world. Just resubmit whenever you get a hold of it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Check here. There's about 20 scattered across the US, one should be near enough to request through ILL. Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Can you identify this WWII gun ? Belgian upgrade of 77mm FK 16 ?edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I'm trying to identify the gun in this photo gun uploaded to Commons.. Uploader says it's in Warneton, Belgium. Is it a modernised version of the German 77mm FK 16 ? Apparently Belgium received some after WWI and upgraded them as Canon de 75mm mle GPFIII. This gun and site appears well preserved so it must have some significance to Belgium. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Rod, the circular baseplate is very reminiscent of the 25-pdr, but the carriage, shield and muzzlebrake are wrong for one of those. The only pictures I have for a GPIII are for prewar versions with wooden spooked wheels that lack a muzzlebrake. I suppose that the Belgians could have updated the carriage after WW2, but I really don't think that likely given the common availability of surplus Allied guns of better performance. Pity that the photo is 5 years old; it would be nice to ask the guy to go back and photograph the dataplate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Could this be a moderenised version of a Skoda 14/19 100 mm mountain howitzer ? Barrel, recoil mechanism & carriage look right. See : .
That certainly looks to be a better match, although that still leaves the open question is why anyone would bother. Perhaps it's a captured German weapon that went through a one-off modernization as I really can't see the Belgians bothering to do this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
It is definitely a modernised 100mm Skoda 14/19 or something very similar - Poland modernised it as 100mm Skoda 100/24 wz. 14/19 : [3] How this got to Belgium I dcan't imagine. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Interesting, my copy of Weapons of the Third Reich doesn't even mention this mod. Did it have a FG #? As to how it got there it was probably assigned to one of the static divisions in Belgium and was captured there. I guess some enterprising German added the baseplate mechanism from a 25-pdr. Good work researching it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On June 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article British B class submarine, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.
If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17
Thanks. The WikiCup has given me a little more incentive to work at the higher levels than I had earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
HI, I see you worked on this article so I'm referring this issue to you. The Queen Mary article states she fired 1250 pound shells, i.e. the light shell. The BL 13.5 inch Mk V naval gun article states Queen Mary fired the heavy 1400 pound shell. ?? Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
You're right; she did fire the heavy shell. I've updated the article to reflect that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
I still think you did the majority of the work and therefore should legitimately be the primary nominator of the article for FAC and claim the points if it is promoted. I'll help out with responding to concerns from the FAC reviewers. Cla68 (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
You really might want to review the article's history. I got it from about 12,000 characters up to about 30,000, but you've almost doubled that. We'll share the nomination. Besides, as I said before, I need co-noms for the WikiCup so I can get two nominations at a time up at FAC, so you'll be doing me a favor, and a rather large one at that. I'm really not inclined to discuss this any more as I see no reason to slight your huge contribution to the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations on the FA for this article. Great work! I'm ready to get started on Akagi if you are. Cla68 (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hey, you deserve it as much as I do. I need to detail all the Norwegian airstrikes made by Furious in 1944 before I can work on Akagi, which will probably take me a couple of days, but feel free to do whatever you feel like. I'll let you know whenever I'm ready to work on it so we can both start saving more often to avoid any edit conflicts.
What do you want to work on after Akagi? I've got nice technical histories by Lengerer for most of the other Japanese carriers, with the notable exception of the other 4 Pearl participants. We could do them based on Jentschura, I suppose, but they'll be a bit harder to take up to FAC. I don't really have a preference, so think about it and let me know what you'd like to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I was thinking of starting with Hōshō and working chronologically, including the light carriers like Ryūjō. Without the detailed design histories, some of them may be a little more difficult, but I think we can work through it with Jentschura, Watts, and other sources. If you'd rather concentrate first on the ones for which you have design histories, that's fine with me also. I think Kaga shows that we have a good system going for getting these articles done. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've got a history of Hosho, but I can't recall if one's been done on Ryujo or not. But we can worry about that when the time comes to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'll try to start uploading Akagi images I have this weekend, family demands permitting. Cla68 (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Sturmvogel,
I know for a fact that there are certail bots/tools/widgets on WP that you can use to measure Article Readability or Double Redirections or too many blue links of the same term and so forth. Two years ago someone had shown me some of those but for the life of me I can't find them. Can you please guide me to correct direction ? TIA 'Perseus 71talk 15:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I wish I could help, but the best I can do is to suggest that you look in the preferences tab and go through the various widgets listed there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Bit delayed. I did go looking in the widgets. Didn't find though. Never mind I will look through my archives for that old thread. Thanks 'Perseus 71talk 13:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
ISBNs were invented in the early '70s. It doesn't have one. You'll have to locate it otherwise. And don't forget Greger's book as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On July 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Russian battleship Evstafi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Um sturm, did you miss this: If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of its nominators may nominate or conominate any article for 2 weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. in the FAC instructions? You need to withdraw your new FAC... -MBK004 01:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Screw it; they can remove it if they want. I'm too pissed at TheLand for screwing over my nom of Princess Royal to care one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
No sources will be brought. So, how long do you want to wait until we can remove it because nobody brought sources? In my opinion thats a bad idea. Blablaaa (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps so, but we need to give him the opportunity to do so. In my experience on Wiki you need to give people as much rope as you can to hang themselves. Then you can cut them off at the knees and nobody can say that you didn't offer the opportunity to address the issue. Besides, people generally know that facts next to citation-needed tags are not to be trusted. Hasty, preemptive edits are often counter-productive in the long run and make you look bad, which isn't good if things get escalated up to WP:ANI, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I've made a couple of passes at the article tonight. I've got a bad feeling that LifeTM is about to get busy for me, but I'll try to keep chipping away at the article when I can over the next fortnight.
In the meantime, a couple of questions. Feel free to intersperse replies.
Do you have a more specific date for when she was paid off?
No, only the sale date.
In Armament, the phrase The starboard after 4-inch (102 mm) gun was removed; in April 1917, this gun and one from HMS Lion were mounted on high-angle Mark II mounts capable of 60° of elevation. comes across as a bit unclear. Does it mean that one gun was removed, then reinstalled (along with another gun) in the new-fangled mount? Does the April 1917 correspond to the removal, or the reinstallation, and do we have a date for the other event?
All I have is that the gun was removed sometime in 1917 and reinstalled on a HA mount in April 1917.
In Armour, is there any particular reason or pattern for varying between spelled-out unconverted words and {{convert}}ed numerals?
That's me trying to adhere to the MOS as much as possible. However, with the recent revision, I think that I can standardize all those numbers belonging to measurements. Done.
I'm thinking that the fire-control info in "Wartime modifications" could be merged into the "Armament" section, because we're still talking about the guns. Of course, where would the aircraft info go then? Thoughts?
I considered doing much the same thing earlier, but rejected it because there's not enough there for a separate aircraft section. However, we could move the wartime armament changes from that section to this one to be absolutely consistent. What do you think?
Moving the armament modifications out is going to take the majority of the Armament section with it. I think you could get away with rolling the aircraft into Armament as well (under the justification that the Strutter could be used to locate targets for the battlecruiser, and the Pup, if not both, could retaliate against aircraft or zepplin attacks).
Done.
Heligoland Bight para 1: Do you know what time Ariadne met her maker?
Ariadne sank at 3:10
Heligoland Bight para 2: When was Princess Royal detached to head for the Caribbean? I think it will read better if we can say but was detached again X days later.
Can't pin it down past early November.
Do you think "a few days later" would work?
Still Para 2: "before cruising off New York City for a period and then steamed down to the Caribbean" is a bit unclear. Did the battlecruiser spend a few days 'marking time' in the area, call in to NYC, or just wave as she went past?
Hard to say. The exact quote is "Arrived Halifax on 21 November then operated off New York before moving to the Caribbean".
Dogger Bank para 3: When NZ went off to attack Blucher, did Princess Royal and the rest follow suit?
All four did.
Jutland para 1: Do you know when Brock assumed command of 1st BCS, and what Beatty became after this?
I can't find a date. I suspect that Beatty was promoted to command of the entire Battlecruiser Fleet very early in the war and handed off the squadron to somebody else.
Jutland para 1: "Astride" doesn't really fit here...is there a more descriptive word or phrase we could use?
While more a land term than a naval one, astride is commonly used for that sort of situation. We could dump the phrase entirely and try something along the line of "between the Germans and their bases", etc.
I've used "to cut off", which I assume was the intention.
Jutland para 2: Check I haven't misrepresented anything.
Only thing is that I don't think that it's really clear that the Brits were missing the Germans while the Germans were hitting.
Para 3: Was there a U-boat, or were the British mistaken?
Nope, no U-boat.
Jutland para 4: Did Beatty's ships reach the Grand Fleet before 5.40 pm, and is the "they" in the next sentance referring to just the battlecruisers, or does it encompass other Grand Fleet vessels?
Kinda depends what you mean by "reached". I think that the 5:40 time is when they were within flag signal range, but that's a bit of a judgement call. I've reworded things to show that only the BC fired. Does it work?
Ive fiddled with it a little more. -- saberwyn 03:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Jutland 6: At what points in the battle did Princess Royal hit Markgraf and Posen?
Markgraf during the Run to the North and Pommern right when the German predreadnoughts popped out of the haze with the sun setting and were only briefly engaged.
Post-Jutland 2: Do Stevens and Goldrick give a number or percentage of Princess Royal personnel affected by the flu? On a related note, is that book worth investigating for a read?
I have no idea; I think that that was added during the ACR by one of the other Aussies. Nick-D or Australian Rupert, IIRC. I think that it's mentioned in the review so you can see who to ask.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Nick-D added it. He doesn't have direct access to to the book, but a relatively local library has a copy, so I'll try to wander up and have a look next week. -- saberwyn 03:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
That's as far as I got so far. More as I make them up. -- saberwyn 11:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Updated -- saberwyn 09:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC) That's the first pass completed. Once I get all your replies, I'll either start a second pass or start spot-checking, depending on how Life gets. -- saberwyn 11:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for taking the time to do this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just to let you know, I reviewed the article for GA here. Just so you know, I'm out of town at the moment, and chances are I won't have a ton of time to get back to any fixes you make until saturday night at the earliest. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
That's fine, I'm just happy that it's finally gotten a review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I just approved your DYK for HMS Furious (47). I'd just like to note that the lead seems overlong; in my opinion, most of the third paragraph, which reads like an article itself, could be deleted. Sincerely, Yoninah (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've deleted one sentence from that paragraph which provided unnecessary details. Thanks for your comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
I have gotten Sokol's book now :) I'll be adding citations into the text of the list soon an re-nominate it when I am done. Does that sound good?--White ShadowsIt's a wonderful life 02:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sounds better; I just hope it has stuff related to the ship's histories and not just organizational stuff about the A-H Navy which would be far less useful for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Good, maybe you can expand those articles into something decent. There are a bunch of online sources about Lissa if you want to work on that article. I'm just a little concerned that Greger's book might have been more directly relevant to the FLC. But I'll get them both soon enough and we can see what needs to be added to make the list as complete as possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
On a related note, I wanted to reread the torpedo stowage discussion on U-boat.net, but I'm not getting through. Have you tried recently?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry, made all the changes requested but did not realize that I had to identify the changes made on the review form. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC).Reply
No, you don't have to identify the changes, but a response would have been nice. I looked for changes made by the nominator The Bushranger, but saw nothing and I'd gotten no response on his talkpage so I figured it was a RL issue or something. But looking more thoroughly at the history page, you seem to the major editor involved. So why didn't you nominate it yourself? If you want to renominate it, I'll review it again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On July 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Furious (47), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On July 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article French ironclad Thétis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On July 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article French ironclad Armide, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On July 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article French ironclad Atalante, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On July 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article French ironclad Belliqueuse, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On July 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alma class ironclad, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On July 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article French ironclad Jeanne d'Arc, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Sturm, can you please add {{subst:GAN|subtopic=History}} to the talk page for Evstafi class battleship? That way I can start the review (I think you may have neglected this part when you nominated it). Many thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please disregard, I worked it out in the end. Anotherclown (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On July 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article French ironclad Alma, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On July 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article French ironclad Montcalm, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
That's prob'ly not the best idea, but there's nothing wrong with starting at the top of the list and working your way down. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'll add your article to my list to do and I should get to it in the next couple of days. It's probably best if you take my oldest articles unless you have a strong affinity for particular ones.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've taken a few of yours (plus one of White Shadows' and one of Nate's). Cam(Chat)(Prof) 01:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Just be sure to do a thorough review; wouldn't want you to be accused of favoritism or anything for other OMT members.
Was that thorough enough? :P Cam(Chat)(Prof) 03:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, it was quite helpful. I'll get to yours sometime this weekend.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hey, thanks for the GAN Review. I'm busy today but I'll likely get to the issues tomorrow (Tuesday at the latest). Thanks again; Cam(Chat)(Prof) 20:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hey, I think I've fixed all the GA issues. Can you check back in? Cam(Chat)(Prof) 16:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Howdy, not sure if you saw my note in the GA review but there is one dead link in this article. Of course the article easily meets the GA criteria IMO so I promoted it but are you able to have a look at the link please? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for reminding me, I hadn't noticed. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I've completed uploading, I believe, all the images I have of the ship. I'll start working on the article text hopefully this week. Cla68 (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Good stuff. Feel free to work on it whenever you get a chance. I was thinking that I should add a class section to the infobox for all the Japanese singleton carriers. That would help to keep people oriented as to the order in which they were built. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
That sounds like a good idea. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Did you not find anything about it in Mclauglin? I'm fine without it, but I don't want the same thing to happen to Sevastopol as to Franz Ferdinand. Could you please ref it somewhere? I'm going to be signing off now for a while, to unpack and do other generic stuff Buggie111 (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I just turned McLaughlin back in as I've been busy with other things recently. However, I'll get it again at the beginning of next month and you can ask me again. You really should try and get it yourself through ILL or equivalent. Don't forget to go through your talk page archives; there are some important messages that you may have missed while you were gone.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Sturmvogel,
Quick question on this article. Even if I improve it significantly, do you think it will not pass the GAN muster unless its citing Knoke's "I flew for Fuhrer" ? TIA 'Perseus 71talk 20:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I think that you're going to need to reference that book. Especially since it the main English-language source on his activities during the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for confirming my suspicion. That's a rare book in these areas as of now. I guess I will have to postpone this article again. So I need to go to Plan B, the OKL. Thanks just the same. 'Perseus 71talk 02:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your constructive participation in the above review. Although the review still has a week or two to run, it may be eligible for early closure. If you get the chance, would it be possible for you to check back to see if your comments have been satisfactorily addressed? Thanks, EyeSerenetalk 07:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (Sasata (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.
Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Sturmvogel. You reviewed the above list when it was at FLC a couple weeks ago. It has been re-submitted, here; would you mind revisiting to ensure your original concerns have been resolved? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'll be happy to field any questions you want me to field. The question about leads is interesting to me, I could do a quick survey of leads in OMT FAs and try to give a detailed answer of how and why we do leads the way we do. Just let me know want you want and what will be helpful, I'm a little pressed for time for another week. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think that it's OK so far. A quick review of all my additional text would be useful, if you've got the time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Having review and passed this article, how far off do you think this is from a successful ACR? I've got a copy of "Iron Coffins", a very good U-boat related book, with me tat I bought a few weeks ago so I can add that in as well if need be. Any thoughts?--White ShadowsIt's a wonderful life 02:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what content Iron Coffins can add to the article, which is very specialized. I think you need more book sources for A-class, especially since the reloads reference is a bit weak and should be replaced if at all possible. You'll also need to expand many of the individual ship histories to cover more of their careers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, Sturmvogel 66. You have new messages at Anotherclown's talk page. Message added 21:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Sturmvogel:
Thanks for checking out City class ironclad. I have cleaned it up some, and have added citations where they were needed (I think). Would you please look it over again and see if it now meets B-class criteria? PKKloeppel (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
There's one unsourced paragraph that I've noted. The main issue is that there's not much of a technical description of the ships. That's one of the essential functions of a class article, I believe. The description of the armor needs to be filled out and detailed descriptions of the armament and machinery need to be added. You can find examples at any of the FA-class warship-class articles. Given how much the armament varied between the ships I'd focus more on generalities as well as providing performance data for the guns, if nothing else their muzzle velocity would be useful. Differences between the ships should be only lightly covered as that can generally be saved for the individual ship articles.
While not relevant to B-class the section on their service is very short and choppy; it might be worth considering trying to rewrite it as a more coherent narrative if you'd like to take it up to GA. You've built a good foundation here and it only needs some more detail to be worthy of a GA. I might be able to help out with the armament stuff as I've got details on that plus the Osprey book on the Union river ironclads which is pretty good. The references need to be reformatted to bring them up to MOS standards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Sturmvogel. Sorry it took me so long to follow up on your suggestions. I waited and waited for a reply to my initial note above (7 August), then realized that I had neglected to put your talk page on my watch list. Clever me. Anyway, I have done what I can to remedy the faults you noted. Note that the "remedy" for the choppiness of the service section is to eliminate it altogether. It amounted to little more than a list, which I have decided really belongs in a separate article that I intend to prepare. Thanks for your input, and I hope that the article is now satisfactory. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
You've improved the technical description of the ships, although the gun data still really isn't up to what I'd like to see. Marietta class monitor is more what I had in mind for that stuff, since I have Olmstead for the gun information. Unfortunately you do need to cover the ships' activities, if only a summary, otherwise it can't be considered complete. See Alma class ironclad for an example of what I mean. I know the Alma-class article is deficient on the gun data, but it's very hard to find detailed gun information for this period outside the US and UK.
Most of what I have on hand focuses on the ships themselves, what books would you recommend for more background on their construction and activities? I ask because I need to source the construction section on the Marietta class monitor article and I have no idea where to find that information. How is the Joiner book?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have restored the activities section and have smoothed out the prose somewhat, following your suggestion. As for the armament, unfortunately I have nothing other than what you see. I would be very happy if you can improve it.
As for your question of other sources: Don't bother with Joiner - it doesn't even mention Marietta in the index. The best (in fact, only) source I have for technical descriptions of the ships is Gibbons. It isn't completely reliable (for example, his depiction of CSS Manassas is wrong, although in accord with a lot of popular misrepresentations), but I was able to check his data on the gunboats against the Official Records. Gibbons seems not to be widely available, but if you would like to look it over, I would be glad to lend you my copy. PKKloeppel (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'll try and fill out all the gun data when I get a chance. You're probably unaware of it, but you've sort of catalyzed a long-term project of mine to work on the various ironclads of all nations. I've modeled it after WP:OMT and am tracking the current status of all the various ship articles on User:Sturmvogel 66/Ironclads, although it's still very incomplete. I've collected a fair amount of material on the ships themselves, but I'm lacking information on their construction and their use, especially for the Union river ironclads. What books would you recommend? You can look though my nautical library on my userpage to see what I already have, but I can probably borrow most anything through ILL.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
You have asked for bread, and I am going to give you a stone. Unfortunately, very few books are interested in the river gunboats; the City class were unique. I might as well warn you right away: the historical coverage of the naval part of the Civil War in the interior is not at all complete, particularly in comparison with the major land battles. When even the most important battles on the river are neglected, you will understand why no one has sat down and written anything about construction. That said, what I rely on is, first, Gibbons, Warships and naval battles of the Civil War. It is basically a coffee-table book, not at all like a retrospective Jane's. Being not even semi-official, everything written there should be checked against DANFS; when they disagree, you have to decide which is more reliable based on internal evidence, or find a third source. Note the order; read Gibbons first, then DANFS. Some of the DANFS articles are really bad, and I prefer not to clutter up my mind with misinformation that I will later have to toss overboard. Fortunately, a third source exists. It is Official Records (Navies) series II, volume 1 (available online), which has a brief technical note for each ship that was commissioned during the war (with at least one exception, Mound City). After that, I am afraid you have to do Original Research. (In fact, many of the reviewers of the CW articles that I have written object that using the Official Records amounts to Original Research, so it depends on how touchy you happen to be on the issue.)
For the Confederate Navy, things are somewhat better (!). I am presuming that your general overview of Civil War ironclads will someday include them. Begin there with William Still's Iron afloat. After that, an abundance of short articles can be found for the best-known ships (Merrimack/Virginia, Manassas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee). I can't lay my hands on the references right now; i will have to sort through my notes when and if you are interested in writing about them. - One book that I really want to look at is R. Thomas Campbell's Confederate Naval Forces On Western Waters: The Defense Of The Mississippi River And Its Tributaries. I haven't seen it yet, but I read his Hunters of the Night, and if they are at all alike, it will be a winner (even if the author, a Pennsylvanian, does not hide his admiration for the Losing Side). Good luck and good hunting. PKKloeppel (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm OK for the Confederates although I'm not in any real hurry to get to them. I've got Still, plus his book on Confederate shipbuilding, Scharf for a good general history, plus Konstam's book and can get the other Osprey on the riverine ships without any problems. Plus I have a good collection of Warship Internationals which has a detailed article on Atlanta as well as some Union ironclads like Dunderberg and New Ironsides. I just ordered Confederate Naval Forces and I'll let you know what I think. The OR should be used, IMO, to validate facts, but don't try and use it for anything more, because that would be original research. Have you looked at the volumes of Battles and Leaders?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
(We're going to run out of space here pretty soon if we keep adding colons.) Yeah, Battles and Leaders is good for the material it covers, but so far as the Union ironclads are concerned, that is limited to Monitor and the Eads gunboats. (I'm relying on memory here. Certainly I don't recall any description of even the river monitors.) B&L does have something to say about Merrimack/Virginia as well as the New Orleans gunboats (Manassas, Louisiana, Mississippi), but I don't remember much else. A somewhat similar source that is often overlooked is the Southern Historical Society Papers; it is organized much like B&L, although obviously not bipartisan. It is mostly about the land battles, but it does have some material about the Confederate Navy. I don't remember any articles that would be directly relevant to your purposes, but some are probably useful for general background. - Also for general background, you might consider Luraghi to supplement Scharf. It is more modern, which is both an advantage and a disadvantage, and it has an index - and that is pure advantage.
By the way, I think your one-man project to summarize the world's ironclads is a fine idea. If you want help, I am willing to advise on the Civil War era. I'm also willing to advise on the more modern ships, but I don't think I can compete with you or TomStar or MBK or (oh, heck, you know their names). PKKloeppel (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Could you have another look at the article please? The last time your concern regarding the lack of personal information and lack of info pertaining to the years 44-45 refrained you from supporting the article for A-class which caused the article to fail A-class review. I believe that the article has improved a little in these areas. Please let me know if a new nomination for A-class has a good chance of succeeding. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Have you had a chance to look into my question yet? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
A little. You still haven't been able to pin down his unit in Sep 39 and I didn't see any mention of a family life. I need to look through Taghon to see what material there is to expand the late war section as that's pretty cursory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
What? I've added that into the text and I own the book.... how are you still waiting for it? (I'm a bit confused here)--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 17:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
And you should be confused. I meant Greger; I know you have Sokol.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ah yes. Just one issue, there is literally no way that I can obtain the book anytime soon. However I can add in bits and pieces of it that appear in other articles on AH BB's. Is that acceptable?--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 17:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Don't know, Greger may well have nothing that you haven't already covered. Hopefully it will get here in a week or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to try to see what I can find from Google books. Is that OK? Then when you get it you can go over what I added and see if there is anything else that you can add.--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 17:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
You should always try and dig up what you can, but snippet view doesn't give much info at all, so I'm not sure what good it will do you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
That's odd. If you see here, it says that Arpad and Babenberg were reconstructed in 1911-1912 but the list says 1910-1911....--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 17:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, I'd suggest that you give both dates with sources so people will know that there's an problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
It looks like you never actually supported so I just want to ask you if you really think that all of the issues were fixed so I can get to them right away even though the list is already a FL :)--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 19:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sure I supported. Look at top of my comments, right under Courcelles's support. Nothing of significance remains.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oh, sorry for missing that when I looked over the FLC right after it was closed. Never mind then and thanks!--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 19:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Give me a few mins before you launch her into hostile waters. - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sure, I've got to add that bit about her gunnery control tower as mentioned by Simon anyways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Great, and if you have time, add a little from the Jutland subsection to the lead. The lead is a little short, and that will add some drama. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
See what you think of the changes; the lede may still be a bit too short, but I'm at a loss as to what can be added unless it's something about the wreck.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I added a bit, see if you like it. Btw, one of the things not included in your warranty is "invisible markup" ... including non-breaking spaces, the arcane details of which I've never bothered to learn. My position is that where the lines break is up to the devs, not the writers. However, the good people who are making the rules disagree, and FAC will go better if someone looks after the non-breaking spaces. - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'll take a look and see. <puzzled>The biggest need for non-breaking spaces in these articles is usually between the quantity or measurement and its unit, but I think that I've avoided most of these by using adjectival forms.</puzzled> I'll have a look regardless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I'm not saying I spotted anything, I'm saying I'm not looking, and Sandy had to insert them herself on the last one. And she doesn't like that. - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Also, do you recall if anyone British has checked the article to make sure it sounds okay to them? - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, must have missed those insertions. But I added the few that were required in this one. Australian Rupert was a reviewer at ACR so I think that we're covered in that aspect. And, since the ship blew up, we don't have any more issues with paid-off or reserve.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
I'm currently on the assessment run, but it's quite a surprise to see you've already gotten some articles. -MBK004 01:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm just going through the British BCs and I'll do couple of gun articles, once I refresh my memory of which phase they're in.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Guns are Phase II, but don't forget to also list them on the actual phase if they are not already. Also, you need to use edit summaries for every edit, it is my major pet peeve. I even have a custom template (do I need to template a regular?). -MBK004 01:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Why do I need edit summaries? I don't normally use them, as you know, so I'm only prepared to use them if you give a good reason to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Just take a look at Help:Edit summary, besides, you will get crucified for not using them at WP:RFA when we eventually nominate you (evil laugh). -MBK004 02:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I save them for reversions and the like where things can get contentious. Already turned down one offer of an RFA, thanks. Most I _might_ want is rollback authority, but I'm very happy to be a content creator.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
You want rollback now? It's just one flip of the switch and I've got the screen open on another tab. -MBK004 02:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
If it's no trouble for you, go ahead, even though most of the pages that I watchlist don't suffer from much vandalism, it would be nice to be able to fix things easily. Do you recommend Twinkle for automating it along with all the anti-vandalism stuff? I read a little about it, but don't know much.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Twinkle is completely separate from WP:Rollback. Twinkle gives you the ability to use a custom edit summary and more options, whereas rollback is ONLY for clear un-questionable vandalism. I definitely recommend Twinkle, but I also recommend rollback because it is quicker for those clear-cut cases. I've gone ahead and flipped the switch.:
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. -MBK004 02:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Now you've done it, MBK. It's on your head when he destroys the wiki. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Curses! Word of my nefarious plans must have leaked out through one of my less trust-worthy minions! (Walks away muttering.)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
OK, if you're watching this, MBK, I've tagged all the British BCs, plus the Russian BB Rostislav since I'm still editing it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and the four guns I added to Phase II.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Well, the first thing I would do is make a sandbox page in your userspace to organize and plan it. You need to decide what content you want to feature: articles and/or types of articles (ships, ship classes, biographies, other related articles), images, quotes, DYKs, etc. Then list what you have available, probably by quality. Then decide if you have enough articles of high enough quality (personally, I'd say the minimum should be B-class, though others may feel A/GA-class is the minimum) to actually build it. Consider the featured portal criteria and honestly ask yourself if it is even possible to meet them at some point in the future. Does it serve as an entryport for a reader interested in learning more about ironclads?
Next, take a look at Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions. You'll have to decide layout, colors, etc. It may seem a bit confusing to look at all of that code, but you can peek at P:BB or ask (Juliancolton or myself are pretty knowledgable). For the mostpart, you just have to copy in the code skeleton, and it will transclude all of your subpages inside of the decorative box, which in turn will transclude the content sub-subpage with the feature or other content.
I'd be glad to help you get started, if you can peice together what you have in mind. I'm afraid I don't really have the time or the motivation to help you do more than get started (skeleton in place and bare bones content); generation of the content would be on you or whatever parties might be interested. If you haven't noticed, my own participation has been slacking lately due to some personal issues; but I'd be glad to help start you off.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I addressed the comments you made at the FAC, if you have any other comments that could improve the article, please let me know. Thanks for taking the time to review it, I appreciate it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
Hello! Your submission of Admiral class battlecruiser at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 20:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by 
Hunter Kahn (submissions), 
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and 
White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Theleftorium (submissions) and 
Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to 
.JPG)
Ian Rose (submissions) (A), 
ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) 
Casliber (submissions) and 
TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17
Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Done Added.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 18:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
![[3]](http://www.afv-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/72755_0.jpg){kind=link}
.png)