Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nassau-class battleship

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nassau class battleship

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

• Featured article candidates/Nassau class battleship

I recently rewrote this article and expanded it greatly. It passed GA about a week ago, and I just added the last section I felt was missing for comprehensiveness (that of the background of the ships' construction). I think the article is at or very near to A-class, hence the nomination. I appreciate any and all constructive comments. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support:

• 'However, they carried smaller guns and were slower, due to the fact that the German ships retained triple-expansion engines as opposed to the high power turbine engines adopted by the British' - Can triple-expansion engines be wikilinked in any way?
  •  Done

• 'In 1906, the launch of the "all big gun"" HMS Dreadnought made all other battleships then in existence obsolete. The First Naval Amendment to the 1900 German Naval Law was passed in 1906' - You need to make it clear that the Amendment was passed because of the launch of the Dreadnought (if that is the case).
  •  Done The 1st amendment was being pushed before the launch of Dreadnought, and probably would have been passed as it was had it gone to the Reichstag before Dreadnought made her appearance. I've explained that a little more clearly in the paragraph.

• 'However, a week after the amendment was passed, funds for two 18,000 ton battleships a 15,000 ton armored cruiser were allocated to the Navy' - Why the sudden change of heart?
  • That I don't know; Conway's isn't clear on why the funds were suddenly appropriated to the Navy.

• There's a lot of jargon - battlecruiser, armoured cruiser specifically; is there any way to wikilink these and make it a bit clearer to the reader the difference between them, perhaps in a note?
  • I linked the ship types and added a note.

• Maybe it's me, but I'm not seeing the link between Tirpitz wanting armoured cruisers, and then the dreadnoughts suddenly being built. Are dreadnoughts armoured cruisers? In either case, I think it needs explaining in a more concise way.
  • I tried to clarify this, does it make more sense now?

• 'The ships had 19 watertight compartments, with the exception of Nassau, which only had 16' - Why?
  • Gröner's doesn't explain why Nassau had fewer watertight compartments, but I'd assume it has to do with her being the first ship, and the other ships were apparently redesigned somewhat after Nassau was ordered (i.e., it was too late to change the design of the ship). That's just a guess though.

• 'As designed, the ships were not particularly good sea-boats, and were quite stiff' - Sorry; don't mean to seem like I'm picking on you, but I really don't know what this means. Can you rewrite it to make a little more accessible?
  • I reworded this a bit too. Does it make more sense?

• 'Each ship carried twelve 28 cm (11 in) SK L/45[A 3] guns in an unusual hexagonal configuration—with one twin turret each fore and aft, and two on each flank of the ship' - Why is this design unusual? Compared to what ships or designs?
  • I added a note explaining the practices of other navies at the time.

• 'The Nassau class ships were equipped with Krupp armor' - What's the significance of Krupp armour - is it an especially good type/design?
  • I don't know whether it's good or bad compared to other types; Krupp was one of the primary steel providers for the German war machine for quite a long time. I linked to the company.

• 'The ships of the class participated in a number of fleet advances' - What's a fleet advance? (Did I ask you that before? I think I did, such a bad memory :)
  • Yeah, you asked that I think during one of the Moltke's reviews :) I reworded it here.

• 'On 16 August, a second attempt was made to enter the gulf; Nassau and Posen, four light cruisers, and 31 torpedo boats breached the defenses to the gulf.' - Should Gulf be capitalized?
  • I was under the assumption that unless one specifically used the proper name, it should be lowercase (i.e., "President Obama", but "the Oval office is where the president works"). If that's not how we do it, I'll be happy to change it.

• 'The wreck of the ship was directly in the path of Nassau; to avoid it, the ship had to steer sharply towards the III Battle Squadron. The ship had to steam at full speed astern in order to avoid a collision with Kaiserin' - Repetition of 'had to'
  • Fixed.

• 'Britain had committed to building a navy that was larger than the next two closest rivals combined.' - Could do with a cite; I'm thinking for readers who would want to chase this up.
  • Citation added.

• That mediawiki link, though formatted well, seems to stick out slightly where it is; perhaps moving it to the bottom of the references section would be better?
  • Done

• You've also got a dab that needs fixing; I'd so it m'self but I'm not sure which one to redirect it to.
  • Also fixed.

Everything else looks good to me; excellent work so far! Skinny87 (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Skinny. I think I've got everything taken care of. I have a tendency to write with the incorrect assumption that everyone knows what I'm talking about :) It's very helpful to have a person who's less familiar with ship-related terms point out the things that are clear to me, but not to everyone else. Cheers! Parsecboy (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, everything looks fine to me now, I'll move to support. Skinny87 (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Harlsbottom

Apologies for sticking this in a heading - I get lost in the mass of text sometimes.

• Have you a reference for, "Compared to their British contemporaries, the Nassau class ships were lighter, had a wider beam and better underwater protection". Specifically on better underwater protection.

• The "Construction" says the class was ordered to replace the Sachsen class armoured frigate (a ref for that is Breyer, page 266). I wouldn't have got that impression from reading the "Development" section. Maybe some rewording?

That's all from me! --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 20:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries on the subheader, I get lost in the text sometimes too :) As for your first question, it's in with the cite at the end of the following sentence (I didn't think it was necessary to repeat the same citation). As for the second, the Sachsen class ships were already obsolete and in need of replacement, even under the 25-year rule (the ships were built in the late 1870s). The source I had for the amendments to the naval law didn't mention them specifically, so I didn't either. I'll add in a line or two explaining where the Sachsens fit into the picture. Thanks for your comments. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look through Conway's and I see no mention of "better underwater protection". A bit on "indifferent" British underwater protection on p. 145 which reads like a gross generalisation and doesn't refer to the Nassaus or her contemporaries. Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 21:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I've interpreted a bit too much :) I'll remove it if you think that's best. Parsecboy (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(Apologies for the delay) If you don't mind removing it. I am having a ratch through my books and papers, but so far I've found nothing relevant to the point. While German underwater protection did have many advantages they also had big cons, such as the large submerged torpedo flats. Will keep looking and will question some of my learned associates. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 23:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries on taking a while. I already removed the line. Thanks for your help! Parsecboy (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - (this version)
  • No disambigs and no external link problems.
  • Where are the links to the four articles on the ships? It'd be nice to see them in the infobox, at least. :/
  • "They were the first German response to the introduction of the "all-big-gun" British HMS Dreadnought.[1]"
    • The ships are linked in the first paragraph of the intro; I've added them to the infobox. Do you think it would be worthwhile to link them again later on, say, in the "Construction" section?
      • Please; I don't think that the reader wants to scroll all the way back to the top to click. ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Done.
    • Wouldn't that mean the same without "first"?
      • Yes, yes it would :)
  • "Compared to their British contemporaries, the Nassau class ships were lighter and had a wider beam. However, they were slower, due to the fact that the German ships retained triple-expansion engines as opposed to the high power turbine engines adopted by the British, and carried smaller guns.[2]"
    • Which contemporaries? Dreadnought or the Bellerophon-class?
      • Dreadnought and the Bellerophons were nearly identical, and the St. Vincents were essentially of the same design as well.
        • Ah. Nvm :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Can we get numbers here? __ vs. __ knots and __ vs. __ inch guns?
      • Done.
  • "Four ships of the class were ordered, under the provisional names Ersatz Bayern, Ersatz Sachsen, Ersatz Württemburg, and Ersatz Baden, as replacements for the four old Sachsen class armored frigates."
    • I thought that they were Nassau, Westfalen, Rheinland, Posen?
      • The German navy has/had a tendency to order their ships under a provisional name that indicated which ship it was to replace in the order of battle (hence the ersatz). Once the ships are completed, they are commissioned as their intended names.
        • Hmm. Interesting...maybe add that in a note? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I added one in, does the wording make sense?
  • References: do you want the (year) or do you not? :) Consistency!
    • Fixed.
  • Sources: can we get a location for all of the books? Put the ISBN after this URL: http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/</s
    • Done
      • Don't forget Admiral Hipper:The Inconvenient Hero! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Cheers Parsec! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed! I think I've got everything taken care of here. Let me know if there's anything else. Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I only have a few minor concerns remaining, so I'm supporting now. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support with just a few minor issues.

• Some images should be moved to the right for balance.
• Can we get a main link in the Battle of the Gulf of Riga section?
• Please be more specific about exactly when the expedition to Finland and grounding of Rheinland occurred in 1918.

Fix these and it should be in good shape for an FAC, good luck! – Joe N 23:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I moved the 3rd image to the left (I was under the impression that somewhere in the Images MOS it says that images that are generally "facing" one way should be on the opposite side (i.e., for a picture that "faces" left, it should be on the right side). I added a link to the Battle of the Gulf of Riga, and added the specific dates for Rheinland's grounding and subsequent re-floating (I don't know how I forgot to add it before, thanks for catching it :) ). Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.