Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Another German battleship article up for ACR, this one was another early pre-dreadnought that didn't see combat during her career, though she was mobilized for service early in World War I. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Link magazine, deck, reserve, and machinery spaces
    • Deck and reserve linked, but I don't see the other two anywhere.
  • in the central portion might be profitably be replaced by "amidships"
    • Are you sure you're looking at the right article? A lot of your comments seem to not be related to this article. For instance there's no mention of landing guns, anybody named Brosch, etc.
  • Do we have a link for landing guns.
  • It's probably just me, but I find the lede a bit too detailed. I really don't see any point to providing semi-detailed construction and builder info, forex, and only orient the reader in the decade of construction when all of that info will be repeated in the main body.
  • French abandoned its attempt Wrong pronoun I think.
  • Redlink to Brosch to match your treatment of the other admirals
  • Add an ampersand to the references to match the format of your cites.
  • Links to the Garbet sources should be added.
  • There's no source given for the infobox photo so how do we know that it's legal to use?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • <Blush> I was reading SMS Kaiser Karl VI, not this one.
  • that drove three screw propellers I think that it's cleaner to say, "each driving one screw propeller".
    • Sounds fine to me.
  • Link main battery, torpedo tube, casemate, regatta, overhaul. Otherwise nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Not much to do, thx for that.- Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A well-written and informative article, which I would gladly support once a few cliches are corrected:

  • Construction to 1905
Blohm and Voss: It's usually Blohm & Voss in German language sources, but I am not totally sure about English language sources. So please enlighten me. Link is fine, though
The & is fine
Kiel Week has an article, should be linked, rather than regatta
Yeah, I don't know why I forgot to link to that article. Good catch.
Oberbürgermeister: there is no such thing in Hamburg. It's Mayor, Lord Mayor or Burgomeister or First Burgomeister but never Oberbürgermeister.
Hmm, I thought I had taken that directly from HRS, but I don't have it on hand at the moment. Changed it to Erster Bürgermeister.
construction number: isn't the nautic term yard number?
Yup, and linked to yard number
it might be worth mentioning that Karl was the first capital ship (and second warship) build by B&V
Found a source for it so I'll work it in
Footnote a: it was the German practice at the time to spell ship names in all caps. Since there is no capital letter for eszett, Karl der Grosse is customly spelled with double-s, like e.g. SMS Strassburg.
  • 1906-1914
1905 is covered in this section
Good catch, fixed
WWI
according to HSR the squadron was tasked with the defence of the Elbe estuary, slightly different from coastal defence, I would say.
I'd say there really isn't any difference - coastal defense isn't just defending the coastline itself, it's protecting against any kind of naval attack
forary: might be worth linking to wiktionary, the wp article is a bit misleading.
I don't generally like linking words that aren't jargony
show the flag, too.
That I think is a worthwhile link
Starting in October: the section is not supported by the reference cited. According to my book, she served as a training vessel until October 1915 and was decommissioned in November after having been disarmed already.
I'll have to check that again - might have mistranslated it.
prison ship: in my edition of Gröner (in German) there is no mention of Karl being used as a prison hulk, while HRS describes her as PoW accommodation (Kriegsgefangenenwohnschiff). According to Gröner, however, she served as Torpedo-Schießstandschiff in 1917, whatever that is in English.
Clarified that it was for PoWs, but it would otherwise be correct to call her a prison ship. As for Groener, I think you were looking at the entry for Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse.
ship-breakers: might be worth a link to ship breaking
Good idea

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC) PS: 11,599 seems to be the displacement in LT not MT according to Gröner.[reply]

I'll have a look and double check. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No external links (no action req'd).
    • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (no action req'd - not an ACR criteria, suggestion only).
    • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd)
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd)
    • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd)
    • The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
    • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [1] (no action req'd)
    • "SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse (His Majesty's Ship "Charles the Great") was a German pre-dreadnought battleship of the Kaiser Friedrich III class, built around the turn of the 20th century for the German Imperial Navy." Do we need to say "German" twice in the same sentence?
      • Good catch, removed the second one
    • "The ship's keel was laid on 17 September 1898 at the Blohm and Voss in Hamburg under construction number 136. She was ordered under the contract name "B" as a new ship of the fleet." Should the order of these sentences be switched? Logically (in my mind at least) the ship would be ordered before the keel was laid wouldn't it? (minor nitpick)
      • A very good point.
    • MOS for this heading is a bit off: "1906 – 1914". Shouldn't it be presented as fols: "1906–14"?
      • Yeah, I think that's right
    • Prose seems a little repetitive here: "The ships were readied for war very slowly, and they were not ready..." (readied and ready in the same sentence). Perhaps reword one?
      • Replaced the first one with "prepared"
    • Perhaps wikilink Prince Heinrich.
      • Added, good idea.
    • This seems to appear rather abruptly: "According to Article 181 of the Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28 June 1919, Germany was permitted to retain only six battleships of the "Deutschland or Lothringen types". Perhaps mention the Germans were defeated as it provides the necessary context to this sentence?
      • A very good point, added a line on that.
    • Otherwise looks fine. Anotherclown (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/SMS_Kaiser_Karl_der_Grosse&oldid=629799049"