Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Westfalen

< 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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Westfalen edit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)
Toolbox

Yet another German battleship, this was one of the first dreadnoughts built by the German navy. I wrote this in May and it passed GA review last month. Dank has copy-edited the article as well. I appreciate the time all reviewers take in checking the article against the A-class criteria. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: just a quick technical review to get the ACR started (I will come back later after reading the article a couple of times):
    • there are two dab links according to the tools that need fixing: [1]
    • no external links, so none are broken (no action required);
    • images have alt text (no action required);
    • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required). AustralianRupert (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the lead two paragraphs in a row begin with "The ship", which seems a little repetitive;
    • not sure if this is important, but as a lay person I couldn't help but wonder why a hegagonal configuration of Westfalen's guns was "unusual";
    • what is a "fleet advance"?
    • "In late March the ship went into drydock for..." What year is this? Is it 1915?
    • in the Battle of the Gulf of Riga section, "In August, the German fleet attempted ..." I think this should be "August 1915" to make it clear to the readers;
    • "promoted to Vice Admiral" I think should be "promoted to vice admiral" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms
    • in the Battle of the Gulf of Riga section sometimes you have a capital "Gulf" and then at other times a lower case "gulf". For example: "...destroy the Russian naval forces in the Gulf" and then "...the northern entrance to the gulf". I think they should all be capitalised as it is, in this case, a proper noun;
    • in the Fate section, perhaps a little bit of an explaination could be given as to why the majority of the High Seas Fleet was interned in Scapa Flow. Perhaps the addition of this clause after the first sentence might help: "...interned in Scapa Flow, under the terms of the Armistice agreement."
    • in the References section some of the ISBNs have hyphens and some don't. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with all your comments and that's very helpful, you make me a better copyeditor, Rupert. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers, no worries at all. I'm very impressed with your copy editing contributions, Dank. We don't have many editors who are keen to do this sort of work, but it is very necessary and appreciated. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, much appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You've just added Note 2 and you're probably working on this anyway, but it needs a ref. I finally have Gröner, and that information isn't on pp. 23-24. I'll be happy to look through my library for this information if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the relevant page numbers from Conway's. Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, and I like the format. Ick ... $125 new or used on Amazon, I'll pass. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What, for Conway's? That's ridiculous, I paid like $50-60 when I got it. But then that was a couple of years ago now. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yep. Conway's 1922-46 was cheaper, I've got that. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Don't know if this pushes it into your budget, but I found a couple copies on alibris.com for around $85 here. Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks much Nate, they had one for $50 plus shipping and tax, it's on the way. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Staff, p. 26 says she joined "I Squadron" on 3 May and became the flagship on 5 May. I don't know if other sources contradict this. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article now says, "... until 3 May. Two days later Westfalen was transferred to the I Battle Squadron of the High Seas Fleet." You're saying she was transferred 5 May; Staff says 3 May. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see. I don't have Staff in front of me, so feel free to change it. Parsecboy (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • My only quibbles are was she coal or oil fired? And Helsinki should probably be used throughout rather than Helsingfors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a line on the boilers, but as for Helsingfors/Helsinki, wasn't the city known by the former during this period? That's how Staff referred to the city, and so does Paul Halpern in his account of the operation. Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Helsingfors was the name during WWI. I got dinged for it on one of my Russian BB articles by somebody who referenced some obscure bit about names in the MOS so it might be worth checking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added "(now Helsinki)" at the first occurrence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support
Only a couple of points from me:

  • The citation check tool reports one instance of multiple refs containing the same content (Staff, p. 19);, and  Done
  • What caused the damage to Westfalen's boiler?

Overall a very good article and I intend to support. Anotherclown (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Staff is in general quite dense, and several articles that use it as a reference cite it many times from the same page ... did that answer the question AC? - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He meant this; there were two citations to the page that weren't merged with the "ref name=" parameter. Parsecboy (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep thats it, apologies for being indistinct! Anotherclown (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as for the damage to Westfalen's boilers, Staff doesn't say. I'd assume mechanical problems. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Moving to support now, good work. Anotherclown (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer and per my comments in the edit history. Also:

  • "Westfalen stood off Reval where she organized the invasion force" is unclear, and I'm not sure what to do with it.
  • Nate, sometimes you italicize en route and sometimes not. I don't have a preference, but consistency would be good. merriam-webster.com supports italics; Webster's NWD and AP are silent. As I recall, it's usually not italicized. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 22 July 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/SMS_Westfalen&oldid=375577279"