Open main menu

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship

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

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleshipEdit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yet another class of German battleships up for review, these were the last of the pre-Tirpitz era. In some ways, they set precedents for future German battleships, but in others, they were outdated. The ships had relatively uneventful careers, being rebuilt in the mid-1900s and then sent to the reserve as the new dreadnought battleships began to enter service. They were reactivated for duty early in World War I but they saw limited activity owing to their age and the threat of submarines. Withdrawn from service and disarmed by 1916, they were all discarded after the war. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • suggest "The Kaiser Friedrich III class consisted of five pre–World War I, pre-dreadnought battleships of the German Kaiserliche Marine, all of which were named for German emperors."
    • I had actually forgotten that I hadn't rewritten the lead when I redid the article earlier this year, so you might want to take another look at it now
  • suggest "The Kaiser Friedrich III class saw the introduction of the traditional armament layout for German battleships prior to the advent of the dreadnought type of battleship in the early 1900s—four large-caliber guns, but of comparatively smaller caliber compared to contemporary battleships, in two gun turrets."
    • Reworked as above
  • link keel laying and ship commissioning in the lead
    • The spot for those is gone now
  • suggest "preceding Brandenburg design"→"preceding Brandenburg-class design"
    • Good catch
  • suggest "The limitations of the fleet's infrastructure, particularly the dry docks and other harbor facilities, along with the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal then under construction, constrained the size of the new ship. As a result, the weight of the center turret used on the Brandenburgs would have to be sacrificed if a heavier secondary armament was to be incorporated."
    • Works for me
  • suggest "Work continued on the ships' design"
    • Sounds good
  • In Agust 1894
    • Fixed
  • "the same old armor layout of the Brandenburgs, a remnant of the old, heavy armor plate" isn't clear to me. Is this just talking about the armor layout in terms of belts etc, or also the use of armour plate? Also the repetition of "old"
    • Reworked it to be clearer
  • the standard displacement isn't covered in the body
    • Good catch
  • "smaller, open bridges" they had open bridges?
    • Yup
  • the crew figures in the infobox don't match the body
    • Fixed
  • there is a bit of repetition regarding KFIII boilers, perhaps just leave it to the General characteristics... section instead of mentioning it earlier
    • I tweaked it a bit to reduce the repetition - see how that reads to you
  • the power conversions don't match between the body and infobox, rounding?
    • Fixed
  • "The ships' armament was nearly identical to the preceding Kaiser Friedrich III class" but this is the Kaiser Friedrich III class?
    • Ha, must've copied the section from the Wittelsbach article
  • I take it the 8.8 cm guns were all singly mounted?
    • Clarified
  • perhaps explicitly state the calibre of the machine cannons?
    • Good idea
  • the TT conversion doesn't match between body and infobox
    • Fixed

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PM Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Sources appear to be of high quality and reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66Edit

  • I've cleaned up the infobox a little, but tell the reader that triple-expansion engines are steam engines, with the proper hyphen and a link in both places.
    • You'd think at some point I'd remember to do this on my own ;)
      • Well, if the intrawebs allowed physical contact... Not that I've ever done much the same thing ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Link knots and nautical miles in both places.
    • Done
  • What caliber are 1-pdr guns?
    • Fixed
  • Move the conversion for 250 mm to the Conning Tower entry, which needs to have "Tower" decapitalized.
    • Fixed
  • In the lede, link gun turret
    • Done
  • compared to contemporary battleships suggest "to their contemporaries" since we already know that we're discussing battleships
    • Good idea
  • Give a rough date when the ships began to be decommissioned in the lede
    • Done
      • What you did is fine, but I meant during the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see - clarified
  • The center turret used on the Brandenburgs was discarded in favor of strengthening the secondary battery. The limitations of the fleet's infrastructure, particularly the dry docks and other harbor facilities, along with the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal then under construction, constrained the size of the new ship. As a result, the weight of the center turret used on the Brandenburgs would have to be sacrificed if a heavier secondary armament was to be incorporated. A certain amount of redundancy here.
    • See if how I've reworded suits you
      • No, you talk about discarding the center turret in order to accommodate the strengthened secondary armament twice. Once and the beginning and again at the end.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Right - I'm trying to unpack for the lay reader why the heavier secondary battery meant the third turret had to be ditched
          • I'd ditch the entire first sentence; the other two explain the situation perfectly, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
            • @Parsecboy: Don't forget about this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
              • Ah, I had missed that comment between replying to CPA. Done now. Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
                • And the effective range of an excuse is.... --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Link metric tons on first use,
    • Done
  • More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • four of the new models Suggest "new types"
    • Done
  • Their metacentric height was between .917 to 1.18 m (3 ft 0.1 in to 3 ft 10.5 in) Suggest "metacentric heights were between". Add a leading 0 to the range and round to the nearest full inch
    • Done, though I suspect CPA is going to kill me for the resulting "0 in" ;)
  • that ran for 70 percent Suggest "that covered 70"
    • Good idea
  • I think that the difference between single-ended and double-ended boilers is unimportant for our readers. Link cylindrical boilers with Scotch marine boilers.
    • Probably a fair point
  • What was the designed speed of the ships? If not available note that 17.5 kn in the infobox is a trial speed
    • Will have to look at Groner later
  • Why is volt capitalized and it needs a hyphen
    • Good point
  • 51-kilogram (112 lb) remove the hyphen
    • Done
  • 3.7 cm (1.5 in) Maxim machine cannons I presume these are the 1 pdrs?
    • Indeed - should be clarified in the box now
  • Each main-battery turret had a 50 mm (2 in) thick roof and 250 mm thick sides. The 15 cm guns mounted in turrets were protected by 150 mm thick sides and 70 mm (2.8 in) thick gun shields. Some missing hyphens, I think.
    • The problem is that apparently hyphens don't go with abbreviated units, and "50 mm (2 in)-thick roof" looks odd to me.
  • More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Or maybe not. The rest looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Don't thank me yet! These guns fired 7.04 kg (15.5 lb) at a muzzle missing a noun.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

Ha, I guess I forgot this one before I went on holiday. :) I'll do this one at the weekend. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • of fire over weight of shell Merge over weight here.
    • No, that's comparing two separate concepts there, not "overweight"
  • In the early 1890s, the German Navy attempted Link German Navy.
    • Done
  • layout of the Brandenburgs, despite the fact that the weight Remove "despite the fact that" with "although".
    • Done
  • In the "Design" section you have tonne/long ton and tonne/long/short tons system.
    • Think I've fixed this
  • settled on a 11,000-metric-ton (11,000-long-ton; 12,000-short-ton) Link long tons here.
    • Done
  • Link "full load" in both the infobox and the body.
    • Done
  • were between 0.917 to 1.18 m (3 ft 0 in to 3 ft 10 in) Remove the first "in".
    • That I can't do without forcing the second to be a decimal figure
  • muzzle velocity of 835 meters per second (2,740 ft/s) Unlink both m/s and ft/s.
    • Fixed

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA Parsecboy (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
G'day CPA-5, are you happy with Parsecboy's responses? Because if so, this one looks ready to roll. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I am. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Checking ISBNs: Dodson's is to the Pen & Sword edition and Friedman is to the Seaforth edition
    • Both fixed
  • Add add an ampersand to the last author in the References for consistency
    • Fixed
  • Why is the fact that Roberts edited Ropp's book important?
    • Without Roberts there wouldn't have been the book - Ropp never turned his dissertation into a book, it was Roberts who did
  • All cites are properly formatted
  • All books are high-quality RS--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.