Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Derfflinger class battlecruiser
- 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.
| Toolbox |
|---|
I thought I'd give you guys a break from my World War I German battleships...with an article about a class of World War I German battlecruisers. In all seriousness, this article has been significantly improved, and passed GA about a week ago. I appreciate any and all comments and suggestions as I prepare this article for an eventual FAC. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- No issues reported with dismabig or external links. A few images may be in need of alt text though, please check and make sure this is added to the article.
- In the design section you have the following paragraph: "This was due to the fact that the latest British battleships had thicker main belt armor, up to 300 mm." I can't think in metric, so can you add the standard measurement for 300 mm.
- What's the difference between a diesel engine and a diesel generator? Earlier in the article I read that the diesel engines were not ready for service at the time the battlecruisers were in service, now I read that each had a diesel generator installed. It may be useful to note the difference in the long run so as to avoid confusion in the article.
- Again, when you get the chance, try to add the gold mark inflation value to the article. I won;t hold this one against you, just a comment.
- In the section "SMS Derfflinger" you mention that the battlecruiser had damage to her turbines but you do not give a reason why int eh article, can this be added?
- In the section "SMS Lützow" you note that her turbine was also damaged, do you know why? I would add this to the article as well.
- Otherwise everything looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking the article over, Tom. I added a conversion for the 300mm in the design section. The difference between diesel engines and generators is that the engines turn the screws, while the generators only provide electric power. I added "electric" for both types of generators; is this more clear now? As to the turbine damage on Derfflinger and Lützow, Staff's book doesn't go into much detail. I'd assume that they were just accidents/equipment malfunctions, but I can't say one way or the other. I did clarify that both instances occurred during shakedown cruises. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everything appears to be in order and addressed. Well Done!— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Minor copyedit, mainly for style, but in general yet more fine work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Can you hide the disambiguator on SMS Moltke (1910) please? Otherwise looks great. – Joe N 21:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Conversions are needed for the tonnage figures for the coal bunkerage, might I suggest using convert|xxx|t|ton which will give you metric tons, long and short tons? They're also needed for the gun ranges and the muzzle velocity. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.