Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/2009

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships | Assessment
Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Information and sources
edit
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.

Dutch 1913 battleship proposal

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • majestic titan) and Nick-D (talk)


The interesting story of the Dutch's plan for nine, later four, dreadnoughts to defend the Netherlands East Indies. Enjoy! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentSupport: just a quick review at this stage, I'm afraid. There are no dab links, the external links work and the images have alt text. I'm not really able to discuss content as it is not my area of knowledge, although it seems complete to me (although I notice that there was some concerns raised on the talk page). Some other points, but not anything major:
    • should endashes be used in the citations between 1914-1918 in the reference name?
    • there appears to be an inconsistency in capitalisation of the word white (as in European people). In one instance it is capitalised, where in another it is not.
    • should the citations use p. or pp. in front of the page numbers?

That is it so far, unfortunately as I'm pressed for time. Hopefully someone with more knowledge on the topic might stop by. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm currently in the process of expanding this article to include more details on the design which I've found in a new source. As such, it may be best to delay any further votes until these changes are made and the article expanded. I hope to have this finished tomorrow (Australian time!). Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I just hope van Dijk and Sturton are reliable, because the article seems to be, perhaps overly, dependant on these sources. However, I recognize the difficulty of finding sources on it. – Joe N 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The different sources are in accordance on almost all details, which is a good sign. All the sources are very reliable - Kees van Dijk is a university professor specialising in Dutch rule in Indonesia, Anthonie van Dijk's articles were published in a reputable journal and Conways is a standard reference work. Nick-D (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but a few niggling points:
    • As far as I know, Koninklijke Marine translates simply as "Royal Navy", not "Royal Netherlands Navy" (which would be something like "Koninklijke Nederlands Marine"). Same goes for Koninklijke Landmacht.
    • Why "tonnes" but "armor"? It's "metric tons" in US English.
    • The proposed ships' armor protection was lighter than that of the Kaiser class, and was similar to the level of protection in contemporary German battlecruisers. - of course I've got to pick on this one: the article could use some specific figures (perhaps in a footnote). The Kaisers had 350mm thick belts and the Derfflingers had 300mm thick belts. You can source that to Erich Gröner's German Warships: 1815–1945, pages 26 and 56, respectively.
    • a powerful fleet of gun-armed ships - What's with the "gun-armed ships?" The bird farms hadn't been invented yet, and why not just say "capital ships" to distinguish them from other "gun-armed ships" like cruisers, destroyers, and gun boats? Same with "gun-armed fleet" later in that section. If you're trying to emphasize Mahanian doctrine over the Jeune Ecole, then that needs to be spelled out, because the average reader doesn't know who Johnny Ecole is.
    • Why not scan in the line drawing from Conway's? That surely falls under fair use, as much as this does.
  • Nice work, both of you. Parsecboy (talk) 00:39, 16 December 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.
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.

Design A-150 battleship

edit
Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • contribs)


A Japanese Second World War design that called for a 20-inch(!) main battery. However, the demands of the war, especially after the major loss in the Battle of Midway, forced the ships to be canceled. Thanks for your reviews, everyone. Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A1 review for Citation Style. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Bibliography: Breyer (1973), p. 330 Acted upon 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Some cites end in a full stop, some don't. Matter of Style 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Multiple authors inconsistent: Bibliography is Author A; Author B. Citation is Author A and Author B. Matter of Style 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Date style inconsistent, mix of D Month YYYY and YYYY-MM-DD "DiGiulian, Tony (9 October 2006). "51 cm/45 (20.1") "A" Type 98 (?)". Navweaps. Retrieved 2009-06-08." 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
(1) - added.
(2 and 3) - I've done this style of referencing in six of my eight other FAs...are you sure it is necessary?
(4) - good catch, changed. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If (2 and 3) is consistent over your other Battleship FAs, I'll take that as a stylistic choice, and deem it consistent. As long as all your short cites end without a full stop :) ! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. :-) Many thanks, —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the length of these guns as expressed in calibers? And a link to the definition of caliber is needed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • In the intro, the line all work on Design A-150 and the Design B-65 cruisers was halted doesn't sound right to me. Perhaps work on the Design A-150 battleships and the Design B-65 cruisers. Also, it also doesn't explain what the B-65s were; maybe adding a note that tells the reader something about the cruisers so they don't have to read the B-65 article. Alternatively, you could just as easily remove the mention of the cruisers and not lose much from the intro.
    • In a couple places, you've got metric tons and in others, tonnes. They're equivalent, but since this article appears to be written in American English, it's probably best to standardize them as metric tons.
    • It's probably better to spell out what "AA" is in the armament section.
    • For the "See also" section, it might be helpful to add a brief explanation of what each of the four are, and why they're being linked. Especially for the H39 and H44 classes, as someone who isn't already familiar with what they were will probably be confused. See WP:SEEALSO for a better explanation :)
  • That's it from me. Nice work on a pretty obscure ship design, Ed :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • These should all be fixed. Thanks for the review and complement! It was hard to write this one. Conway's gives it only a passing mention in the section on the Yamatos, and Garzke and Dulin only have eight paragraphs on it. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • It's a great article that meets almost all of the criteria, however I do have two issues:
    • "Initial design studies were drawn up after the completion of plans for the Yamato class (1938–39); they focused upon a ship with a displacement nearer to that of the Yamato's." I think "drawn up" needs to be repalced with "undertaken", plans are drawn up but design studies aren't, at least IMO. "upon" can just be replaced with on.
    • There is one question the article doesn't answer: why were they built planned? I think you need a section on development or whatever.--Patton123 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good first point, but I don't understand the second. The ships were never built! :-) Does the article not make this clear enough? —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Forgive my incopetence! I read the article and realised that but for some reason I still wrote that! Anyway I'm talking about a section such as Montana class battleship#History and Iowa class battleship#History, which details the reasons why they were planned and how they were going to be used.--Patton123 (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Haha yeah, what the heck. :P I see what you mean now, but this is the best I can do ("As the Japanese expected that the Americans would be able to obtain the true characteristics of that class (namely the principal armament of 460 mm (18.1 in)), the use of 510 mm guns was vital to keep with Japan's policy of individual ships' superiority over their American counterparts; the A-150s were meant to counter the United States' reply to the Yamatos.") —Ed (talk • contribs) 07:09, 8 November 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.
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.
Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collins class submarine

edit
Nominator(s): -- saberwyn


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets WP:MILHIST's criteria for A-class articles. -- saberwyn 05:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made the dashes, and referencing consistent. What is happening with the clarification tags though. There is also a succession of one-line sentences (paragraphs I meant) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for fixing the en-dashing...I can never get it right. The article could probably get away without the two clarification tags, but I'm hoping to find more specific information for each (a more specific date than a five-year range for the cancellation of boats 7 and 8, and the name of the submarine in the 2003 wargame). I'll attempt to merge a few of the short sentances together over the next few days. -- saberwyn 06:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also tried to roll a few sentance paragraphs into groups. However, some of them are there to be fleshed out in the future (for example, the "One major upgrade" line in "Sensors and systems" will be expanded to describe that upgrade when it happens, or the "only sub in 2009", which will gain multiple lines when the number of subs goes back up again, or a specific incident occurs which is attributed to the lack of Collins class subs running around.) while others (like the line in "Maintenance" about the cost thereof) I'm not sure how to 'paragraphise' because they don't appear to mesh well with the surrounding paragraphs. -- saberwyn 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - are you sure the RAN uses 'SSG' pendant numbers? Otherwise it's extremely good, and I will probably vote support after this point is addressed. Buckshot06(prof) 09:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSupport: there is one dab link (Sven), but I think in this case it is okay as it is just a link to the name (?). The external links all work according to the link checker tool and the images all have alt text. No errors found with refs having the same content. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My intention there was to link to the disambig page, as the introductory paragraphs on that page indicate the Norse/Swedish origin of the name. If the link is believed to be problematic, it can be removed. -- saberwyn 21:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wobbly. I had a look at the lead. These glitches suggest that an independent copy-edit would be helpful in meeting the Class-A standard for writing.

  • "... Collins; the other ...". So much nicer without the "with" connector.
  • I've had my head sliced by nautical people for using "boat". And for a submarine?
  • "conventionally-powered submarines"—please see the MoS on hyphens.
  • "prompting widespread improvements in Australian industry"—err ... vague (which industry, what improvements?) and I hope it's referenced further down.
  • Remove comma after "1980s" to avoid temporary ambiguity in the grammar ("as" is such a problem word).
  • "throughout the various phases of their life"—various and throughout ...
  • "foul play"—do you mean "conflict of interest"? A bit cryptic.
  • "These" back-refers to ... "problems"? There are several plural nouns in the previous sentence.
  • "Negative press resulting from this has led to poor public perception of the Collins class." Watch those back-references: what does "this" refer to? Perhaps "The related negative press has led to the poor ...".
  • at which ... for which. Tony (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ROKS image: tiny. This and a couple of others could do with a boost to 240 or 250px, or whatever you judge is best. Please note the recent change to policy at WP:IUP and at the MoS on image size, which no longer imply that default sizes are the norm. Tony (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An independant copyedit would be beneficial. I have listed the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics.
    • I think I've dealt with the one in the lead, but in a different way.
    • And submariners will shoot you if you refer to their vessels as "ships". "Boats" is acceptable, because the original definition of a submarine was "a boat which may go under the water".
    • Removed.
    • From "Construction": The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500.[1] I can't pull a citation for exactly what industries, but would assume construction, manufacturing, electronics, and software/programming off the top of my head. Specific companies are mentioned at the relevant points in the article.
    • Rewrote that sentance.
    • "Foul play" was the term used by the source, so I stuck with it. Examples of the relevant incidents during the selection process are detailed in paragraph 3 of "Funded studies": I don't think "conflict of interest" would be appropriate to describe any of these.
    • Yes. Altered to "These problems..."
    • Changed to "The resulting negative press has led..."
    • Now reads "It is expected that the Collins class will remain in service until the 2020s. Planning for a replacement submarine class commenced in 2007."
    • Considering all the problems and arguments relating to image sizes, user defaults, accessibility, etc., I would prefer to leave all images (bar the infobox, which by convention is set at 300px) standardised at default size until fixing them at non-default sizes becomes the norm. If an individual user needs more detail, they can adjust their default settings (registered users), or click on the image to access the preview or full resolution view (all users/readers).
  • Feel free to intersperse your comments with my own. -- saberwyn 11:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - One dab, external links look fine, alt text is present, couple comments on sources:
    • FAC people might protest at the "&"s in the refs, but that is your call. The relevant page is MOS:&.
    • A lot of citations to The Collins Class Submarine Story, though I can understand becuase that focuses on this class. Just a comment, no action necessary.
    • I don't believe that it is normal to have |format=Google Books and |accessdate= in references? I know that you used Google Books instead of buying/renting the book, but I have never seen it cited that way. The most I've ever seen is a link to the relevant GB page. Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was taught to cite sources using APA style at university (which I've tweaked slightly for my Wikipedia citing needs), which uses the ampersand (&) in citations when more than one author is involved. There are no ampersands in the prose of the article, which is what that section of the MOS seems to be worried about.
      • I'd like a little more diversity in the sources too, but The Collins Class Submarine Story is the only detailed and comprehensive work on the class published to date. I have tried to use other sources where possible.
      • I figured that if you can provide an external link to text of the the source, this makes it more accessible to readers seeking more information or verification (Very few libraries/bookstores outside Australia are going to stock this book). If an external link is used as part of a citation, it should have the date accessed. -- saberwyn 02:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check in the middle:

  • "The age of the design was a concern"—could it be more explicit (do you have access to ref. 13?). Being foreign to the topic, I'm wondering now about use-by dates for such designs, and why.
  • "The proposed design"—they're all proposed, at that stage, aren't they?
  • "despite there being no accepted definition of"—noun plus -ing a bit clumsy ... "despite the absence of an accepted ..."? Do we need "also" there? Heck, sounds like a botched tendering process.
  • I see "also" and closely repeated [22]. "On 9 May, the Australian Cabinet approved the selections for the funded studies.[22] They also decided that six submarines would be built, with the option for two more, and that all would be constructed in Australia.[22]" Why not: "On 9 May, the Australian cabinet approved the selections for the funded studies and decided that six submarines would be built, with the option for two more, all in Australia.[22]"
  • "if the submarine project cost increased too much"—last two words are vague; did the report give an idea of what too much was?
  • "started with a 4"—many readers won't have a clue. I'm guessing Beazley meant [A$4 billion], which could be inserted in square brackets if my hunch is correct. Tony (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Farncomb image drifts between sections. Not a great pic in quality terms, but a few of the others could still do with enlarging; the taller pics are fine—the untall ones need to sort of match them in area.

    • Now reads "The age of the early 1970s design...". The Sauro class had been designed in the early 1970s, and only major change offered in the 1983 tender was to increase the hull size and number of internal decks. My speculation is that the RAN were trying to replace a late 50s-early 60s submarine, so wanted something a lot closer to the cutting edge than the Italian proposal.
    • Changed
    • Changed. Botched? This was the first in a long string of issues with the combat system... it got so bad that the CS was abandoned and restarted from scratch.
    • Changed
    • No idea, because I have not read the report itself. The source I used didn't give a numerical value, but also states that Dibb recommended this despite specific instructions from Beazley that the submarine project was "off limits" for costcutting. My guess is that the working would be vague, to give both parties some breathing room.
    • Yes, AU$4 billion. Would that go inside or outside the quote marks?
    • I've shifted that image up a little, but I want to keep it in close proximity to the final paragraph of the "Operational history", which is what it relates to. The Operational histroy section will expand over the next 15+ years, so in a few years that section should be nicely walled in with text.
  • Again, feel free to intersperse any replies. -- saberwyn 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. I don't know enough about it to offer useful comments on the content, but it appears to be well-referenced and written. However, I noticed several citation, verification, and clarification needed tags over the several days I spent reading it, so please fix those before it reaches A-Class. – Joe N 23:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated in reply to Yellowmonkey, the two {{clarification needed}} tags were used because, while the content currently in the article is cited and verified, more specific information not in the source was desired. I have replaced these tags with hidden notes in the body of the text.
    • The {{verification needed}} tag was because I was unable to access a particular web-based source to verify the statement at the time the tag was placed. That source has come back up (and has been replaced by a slightly more reliable link), so the tag has been removed.
    • There are no {{citation needed}} tags in the article. -- saberwyn 21:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I could have sworn I saw some. Oh well, it's good now. – Joe N 01:43, 5 November 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.
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.

USS Chesapeake (1799)

edit

This should be the last original frigate ACR for at least a few months. The article passed GA a couple of months ago and since then I've managed to find more information to add. The DANFS article on this ship was recently overhauled and posted on 12 September requiring that I make some adjustments and updates. There has always been some debate over the gun rating for this ship; either 36 or 38 but I have a majority of sources that rate her at 38 and only one (Beach) that claimed 36. The DANFS article previously claimed 36 but the refreshed article goes with 38. Majority rules in this case. I'm sure that the article needs a good copy edit but I'm becoming cross-eyed over 19th century period ship descriptions. --Brad (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments This is a very good article, but needs a little bit more work. My suggestions are:
    • Some of the text is written in the passive tense (eg, "A sailing contest with her sister ship President during this cruise would result in Chesapeake being soundly defeated", "Captain Alexander Murray would keep Constellation far offshore", "Chesapeake would sail for home on 6 April", "Morris would remain in the Mediterranean until being recalled", etc) and should be changed to active tense.
    • Should there be apostrophes in '36's were re-rated as 38's'?
    • How did Thomas Truxton enforce Stoddert's directives?
    • "Barron found Chesapeake in much disarray from her several year period of inactivity and he left Master Commandant Charles Gordon in charge of the preparations" does this mean that Barron avoided his responsibility to fix the ship?
    • "Some sailors from Constitution joined Chesapeake and together they filled the crew with sailors of all nations" seems an overstatement - 'several nations' perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out what you found. That was the slap I needed to find the poor prose and I have gone over the entire article. Hopefully it should read better.
As for Truxton, his actions were nothing more than to sit around and act important. His assignment to the yard by Stoddert was nothing more than to appease Truxton's ego. There was no ship available for Truxton at that particular time and with a war going on and Truxton threatening to resign over the silliest things, Stoddert did whatever it took to keep experienced Captain's in the service. Stoddert sent him to Gosport to act as "though you were the commander in chief of the Navy." to get some ships completed. What he actually did while there is a mystery but when he found out that Stoddert wouldn't give him a Flag Captain, he resigned. Stoddert was tired of Truxton's crap and called his bluff by not appeasing him again.
As for Barron, yes, he apparently was only aboard the ship twice before she sailed to her doom with Leopard. I had thought that his ensuing suspension from the navy was enough to explain the overall negligence on his part. --Brad (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: alt text is present, all refs have been consolidated and there are no dab links. There was, however, one external link that would not connect according to the Featured article tools. It is the pdf of Gordon Calhoun work. Sorry, could you please investigate? Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link has loaded fine for me. It does link directly to a PDF so I'm not sure if that could foil the link tool or not. The PDF is large and takes a while to load. --Brad (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've cleaned up the text a bit, but it looks good. Just wondering, are you planning for a FT on the six frigates and Six Original Frigates of the United States Navy? – Joe N 01:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; featured topic is a goal for these articles. One is already FA from last year and I've this one and two others that should be FA by years end. That leaves three more articles to work up. I estimate featured topic by early 2011. --Brad (talk) 03:21, 6 November 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.
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.

Operation Teardrop

edit
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)


This article was recently peer reviewed, and I think it may now meet the A class criteria. Comments on how to further develop the article to FA status would also be great. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to wind in the See Also into the article or delete it. Also, I got the feeling that the 'Background' first section was a little under-cited - might want to add more in or repeat cites. Is the extensive discussion of the postwar mission evaluation necessary, or, since it's not actually part of Operation Teardrop, better placed at another article? The alt text for USS Mosley could also use 'destroyer' instead of 'ship.' Buckshot06(prof) 06:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those comments. I've removed the see also (as these German operations weren't the target of the USN's barrier forces which is the topic of this article), trimmed the last para so its better focused on the article's topic and tweaked the alt text. Those parts of the background section all come from Lundeberg (who has written the most detailed and recent work on the high-level political and military background to this operation) and I'm a little bit reluctant to break down the citations into individual pages, though I would be happy to do so. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: there are no dab links, all the duplicate refs have been consolidated and alt text is present. There is one external link, however, that is dead according to the Featured article tools linkchecker. Can you please investigate this? Other than that I believe that the article meets A class. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. The link states that 'This page is temporarily out of service. Please check back later' when you load it, so it may come back. I'll remove the URL if its still dead in a few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Prose looks very good.
    • "considering attacking" could be "considering an attack on".
      • Done
    • "utilized", being an ugly word, could be just "used".
      • Done
    • "deployed into a 120-mile (190 km)-long line while the two carriers, each"—see "Multi-hyphenated items" at User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Hyphens.2A: "a line 120 miles (190 km) long"?
      • Done, thanks
    • Quite a lot of "alsos".
      • I've just trimmed these a bit
    • Consider placing "However," at the start of a sentence. Tell your readers early that you're going to contradict the foregoing in some way.
      • I've been trained in my writing-intensive government job to not start sentences with 'however' as it makes it look like the sentence is nullifying the previous one, so I'm reluctant to do that
    • "the boats found no targets" would be nicer.
      • Done
    • Radar out for close repetitions: "after being ... after being".
      • Well spotted! I just trimmed some.
    • Numeral for "22"? Where is your boundary between spelling out and numerals? I think numerals would be easier in some cases: "three escort carriers and 31 destroyer escorts".
      • I don't have a barrier; the use of both was criticised in one of my FACs, so I've stuck to spelling it out
    • "Upon"? Bit old-fashioned in most contexts.
      • I trimmed the first one, but I think that the second one is OK
    • "to quickly get information" might be "to promptly extract information".
      • Yes, that's much better, thanks
    • "he'd"—MoS says no contractives.
      • Fixed
    • The images are tiny. Some are full of detail or hard to make out at current sizes. I've enlarged a few. The V-1 image—there's a better way of displaying horizontal images (see MoS?). It's so tiny even the sighted need the alt text. Tony (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm confused about image sizing; I like the default 180px (which look fine on my large monitor) and forced resizing was discouraged for a long time, though that seems to have recently changed. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 19 October 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.
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.

USS President (1800)

edit

Yes, another original frigate article. Recently passed GA and has been copy edited to some extent. All sources are exhausted on this subject yet they still leave a substantial amount of information at hand. --Brad (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Support
  • "During the war President patrolled as far east as the English Channel and as far north as Norway." Noway is east of the English Channel.
And there is the dilemma I was faced with. Norway is north-east of the English Channel. It's certainly farther north and east than the EC. The trouble I had was making it understandable. Perhaps removing the north and east descriptions would solve the problem? I'm open to suggestions.
Perhaps just "patrolled as far from the United States as the English Channel and Norway"? – Joe N 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be more clear now. I also had to remove "christened" and replace it with "completed" as I have no evidence that the ship was ever christened. Another editor had added christened. --Brad (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sources do not agree on the roles of those involved in her construction. Toll claims Cheeseman; DANFS claims Bergh; the New York Times article written by Bergh's son Henry, claims that Bergh was Naval Constructor appointed by Cheeseman;" This phrase doesn't make sense and makes the whole note confusing.
I'm trying to explain to the reader what each source I had at my disposal said about the builders. That is, none of my sources agreed with the other or made no mention of it. In this case my only choice was to include all three persons and attempt to explain why the article is unclear about who did what and when. Ideas?
I understand what you're trying to do, I just think you forgot a word. Toll claims Cheeseman...what? Was the foreman? Same with Bergh. A useful footnote, just badly phrased. – Joe N 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this more clear now? --Brad (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention her recommissioning in 1809 but no decommissioning, can this be clarified?
This question came up at the GAR. Being knowledgeable about ship procedures I could say that President was put in reserve after the First Barbary War which is quite likely, but none of my sources say this ever happened. So, if I can't cite it, I can't say it. I did have a cite to say that the ship was recommissioned on 1809.
Too bad, it's just rather confusing, but I suppose it can't be helped. – Joe N 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note at the end of the section to explain the gap. Look ok to you? --Brad (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rodgers' squadron managed to capture seven merchant ships and recapture one American vessel before returning to Boston." Wait, I thought you said he hadn't caught the convoy. If he later went chasing other ships after giving up the chase for the Jamaica convoy, you should say that.
This should be more clear now? --Brad (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Joe N 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall good, just a few clarifications before I can support it. – Joe N 17:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, it's all good now. – Joe N 18:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with few comments:
    • Please consider adding references inside the notes as well, even if the coresponding references are posted near the note links in the article text.
    • There is no need for separate section for notes and citation. See here how you can easily merge the two sections in a more elegant referencing system.
    • Why are some characteristics in the infobox cited and some not? They should all be cited even if they are referenced by the same citation.
  • Otherwise a good article and a nice read. Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You suggest some ideas that I will pursue before FAC such as the easier setup on notes and references. As for the infobox citations.. I had another editor mention that whatever was cited in the body of the article didn't need citing in the box. Whichever way is correct I will repair the cites there. --Brad (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendations above would make your life easier through an FAC, but they are just advices so feel free to do what you consider best. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The images all have alt text, and the external links all work. There is one disambig link though that needs fixing (Irish Channel). Can you please investigate and pipe it through to the most correct link? Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 19 October 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.
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.

USS Congress (1799)

edit

Recently passed to GA. This article is short! As I pointed out on the talk page, there is a lack of any substantial writing that has been done via sources used for this article. In fact, for a change, the DANFS article actually contained more information about her later career than anything else did. There are still gaps in her later career that I'm not sure could ever be filled in without extensive research that goes beyond what is expected for a WP article. Nevertheless, I'm nominating this article for A-class. --Brad (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Full Support
Excellent article, although I was confused by the beginning of the construction section; I realize you've linked the main article at the start of the section, but to begin with 'The keel of "Frigate F" was laid down' is very confusing as I've no idea what Frigate F is. Might I suggest a few sentences explaining what the first six frigates programme was?
  Done Your observation was spot on. I realize that I wrote the construction section making a lot of assumptions. I will rework that section and also fix your questions about Algiers. --Brad (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have some info, even just a sentence, on what the previous two Constellations were, since it's mentioned in the lede but not the main article, so far as I can see.
Constellations? If you mean the previous two ships named Congress there is a link at the top of the article for more information on the other ships named Congress. My feeling is that dragging those ships into this article is more or less off topic.
Yes, that's what I meant, I apologize. I guess that's fair enough then. Skinny87 (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Construction was interrupted in March 1796 upon conclusion of peace terms with Algiers' - Eh? What peace terms, what conflict with Algiers? This section needs some real context!
When ship names are first used, I would suggest placing 'USS' in front of them, like the Chesapeake in the second section, as it confused me for a second before I clicked on the link.
The article is written about a US Navy ship, therefore having to point out the nationality of other ships of the US Navy isn't really needed. This isn't the case when Royal Navy ships are brought into the article which I have identified by using the HMS prefix.
'She was then placed in ordinary at the Washington Navy Yard' - What does 'in ordinary' mean, please? Even just a wikilink would be good.
in ordinary is linked in the lead section. No need for repetitive linking.
'recaptured one American flagged ship' - This is rather confusing. I assume it was captured by the British before they recaptured it, but why was it still flying the US flag? Was it some kind of subterfuge?
Hopefully I have clarified a bit further but sources are lacking any detailed description of who had captured that ship to begin with.
No information on what the nine prizes captured by the two ships were, I'm guessing? Skinny87 (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the War of 1812 section was researched by having to follow the doings of President and United States which Congress served with during that time. Congress was always written as an afterthought in most of the sources. --Brad (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've certainly cleared up everything I wanted to know. Full support! Skinny87 (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Mostly looks good given the limited sources, but there are two issues that it'd be nice to resolve a bit more.
  • "she returned to Boston in April and was ordered to the Washington Navy Yard to be placed in ordinary.[1][13] En route, she passed Mount Vernon on her way up the Potomac and Captain Sever ordered her sails lowered, flag at half-mast, and fired a 13-gun salute to honor the recently deceased George Washington.[14]" Eh? If my geography's correct, one wouldn't sail up a river in Virginia to get to Boston, in Massachusetts.
Here is part of the paragraph I used from Allen p. 258:
Meanwhile the vessels not needed for service in the spring of 1801 were laid up in different ports. The United States, Congress, and New York were ordered to Washington. The Congress sailed from Boston and " was delayed by head winds, so that we did not reach Washington till late in May. We passed the frigate United States in the lower part of the Potomac. About 10 o'clock in the morning of a beautifully serene day we passed Mount Vernon.
I'm not a nautical navigation expert but I believe that to get from Boston to Washington DC by ship you must go from Boston down to the mouth of the Potomac and back up to DC.
I think I must have misread it the first time, it looks good now. – Joe N 01:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea what happened between 1807 and 1811?
I can't fill in any more gaps from my sources. At this point I think that further research might require a trip to the National Archives to find the log books of Congress or records from the various navy yards she was in during that period. But that is research far beyond what is expected for a wp article. --Brad (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, that wouldn't be necessary. It's still a shame though. – Joe N 01:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
– Joe N 15:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I believe that this article meets the required standard for A-class. Its not as comprehensive as equivalent A-class articles, but as you have said, there is a paucity of sources covering this particular ship. -- saberwyn 06:09, 13 October 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.
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.

SMS Nassau

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Another one of my seemingly interminable German warship articles :) Seriously, though, I think this article is fairly comprehensive; it passed GA about a month ago, and I have recently dug through my copy of John Campbell's Jutland: an Analysis of the Fighting and added what extra bits I could. I appreciate all comments and suggestions. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • You need to fix up the convert measurements.
    • What happened to this ship between 1916 and 1918? I see a gap there. --Brad (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I've got all the conversions now, but if I missed any, can you point them out? As for between 1916 and 1918, I haven't found anything; it seems she sat in port for the majority of it. It would be probable that she took part in this operation, since her sistership Oldenburg was there, but Nassau isn't mentioned by name as having been there. Should I add it on the assumption that she was there? Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support I added some non-breaking spaces where needed. Better to leave the time gap in the article than to begin assuming. I've run into the same problem on a couple of frigate articles I've worked on. Not much can be done about it. --Brad (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good, except that at the end of the Jutland section it seems to imply that she was hit while standing guard at night, is that correct? If not, it should be rephrased. – Joe N 00:25, 7 October 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.
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.

Tosa class battleship

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • contribs) and Parsecboy (talk · contribs)


Both Tosas were canceled as part of the agreements made at the Washington Naval Treaty, but Kaga was reordered as an aircraft carrier when the battlecruiser Amagi was severely damaged by an earthquake and served in the Second World War, where she was sunk. As always, all comments are welcome! Thanks and cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 22:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments I almost feel like I need to make a template for Ed articles to point out the following:

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.
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.

SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


This article was overhauled earlier this month, and passed GA review over the weekend. I feel it's up to A-class standards, or very close. I appreciate all reviews/comments that are directed at improving the article. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to look at this nomination. Parsecboy (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Shouldn't the article tell us a little more about the name patrons of the ship? And tell why she was named Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelmand later Barbaros Hayreddin. Later in brackets only does it tell us that Barbaros Hayreddin was a former admiral. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Convert the displacement in the infobox. And I'm fairly certain that the nomenclature on these guns was 28 cm K L/50 as I believe that the KLM changed their style of naming after these ships these ships entered service. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find anything that explicitly states that these ships carried K L/40 and L/35 guns, though Groner's doesn't call them quick-firing, and Conway's 1906-1921 has a table of German guns, and has entries for 28cm K L/40 and K L/35, but no entry for a 28cm SK L/35. The entry for the SK L/40 has the turret information for the 1901 mounts used on the Braunschweigs and Deutschlands. I have also amended 28 cm SK L/40 gun accordingly. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You need convert templates throughout the article (you knew I was going to say that)
  • Are we not putting citations into the infoboxes anymore? I'm curious about this for the articles I'm working on. --Brad (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'm usually good at doing them in the technical sections, but usually forget them in the rest of the prose. On your second point, I haven't ever put citations in the infobox, as long as the information is cited in the prose (sort of the same reasoning why we don't need to cite the intro as long as it's cited elsewhere). Parsecboy (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Convert templates still needed. --Brad (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added one for the 45cm torpedo tubes, which is the only one I found missing. Are you referring to the gun sizes in the Balkan wars section? I left them unconverted because they're already done in the "Construction" section. Do you think I should convert them too? Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • A conversion done at the beginning may not be remembered in later sections but that's just my 2 cents. You're missing a conversion in the infobox where the belt armor is 12-16 inches. When converting knots or nautical miles you should also include the US measurements. Anyhow, to move along, I support for A-class. --Brad (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough; I've added conversions in the rest of the prose. Thanks for catching the conversion issues in the infobox; I usually just leave speed conversions without specifying the output, but those must've been done by someone else and I just missed them. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: there are no dab links and there are no external links to cause any dramas. My only question is should the infobox image have alt text per WP:ALT? Other than that I think it is up to scratch. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 27 September 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.
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.

Brazilian cruiser Bahia

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): —Ed (Talk • Contribs)


Part of the fastest class of cruisers in the world when commissioned, Bahia was a participant in the "Revolt of the Whip". She then served in both World Wars as a convoy escort, but in 1945 she blew up and sank in about three minutes with few survivors. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on this article, Ed. I'll review the article in more detail later, but right now I wanted to point out a glaring problem in the infobox. Right now, it says that the ship was launched more than a year before she was laid down. Can you fix that? Parsecboy (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Have fixed it; nice catch! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed this article GA today, and found no issues that haven't already been fixed that would prevent this article from meeting A-class requirements. Excellent work again, Ed :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two sentences need work. Massive explosions incapacitated the ship, and she sank within minutes with a large loss of life. Incapacitated how? Blew her stern off, what? This resulted in a striking aesthetic change, with the exhaust being trunked into three funnels now, rather than three Typo, I think? More comments later. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good, but when you mention that "While firing, he accidentally hit the depth charges on the stern—a direct consequence of the lack of guide rails that would normally prohibit the guns from being aimed at the ship." it seems rather out of the blue - if you plan to bring up the guide rails, they should be introduced better and/or covered more extensively or earlier in the article. – Joe N 02:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Yet another great article about a Brazilian warship. I think that it needs a little more work to reach A class status though. My comments are:
    • While not directly relevant to A-class status, I don't think that the lead para meets MOS:BEGIN
    • Can the 'Construction and commissioning' section be expanded?
    • Is there anything more which can be said about this ship's experiences in the "Revolt of the Whip"?
    • Was Bahia involved in anti-submarine patrols before the formal declaration of war in 1917? - the current text is a bit unclear
    • The sentence "Bahia was used extensively during the Second World War for escorting and patrolling, conducting 67 of the former and 15 or the latter" is a bit unclear - did she escort 67 convoys and make 15 patrols? - if so, it would probably be better to state this.
    • Was there a reason that guard rails to stop the 20mm guns hitting the ship weren't fitted? (this is probably the most embarrassing fate to befall any major ship I've seen, by the way). Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...and again, I disagree. :| The first paragraph in itself does not, but the first sentence does, I believe.
      • Possibly with stuff about the 1904 naval authorizations.
      • Not really. Although she took part, the principal ships were really the brand-new Minas Geraes and Sao Paulo.
      • I am not sure. The source itself is not clear; it says something like 'the Brazilian Navy patrolled...' It's really not specific on that point.
      • I changed a typo "or" to "of". Was that what you were asking me to do?
      • I would assume so, but the missing guide rails are only mentioned in connection with the explosion; nothing is said about why they were not there, just that they weren't. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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.
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.

SMS Lützow

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Here's the last of the three Derfflinger-class battlecruisers to grace the hallowed MILHIST A-class review page. This article was rewritten over the past few months and passed GA in mid-August. Hopefully the comments and suggestions that come here will help smooth out the eventual FAC for this article. Thanks in advance to all reviewers! Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - references, dabs, external links and alt text look okay. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:20, 9 September 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.
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.

SMS Derfflinger

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


This article was significantly reworked about a month ago, and it passed GA review 2 weeks ago. Just think: after this article, SMS Goeben, SMS Lützow, Mackensen class battlecruiser, Ersatz Yorck class battlecruiser, and O class battlecruiser, Milhist won't be seeing any more A-class noms for German battlecruisers. (kinda makes you want to cry, right?). Anyways, I feel this article meets the criteria for A-class, and the comments here will help me prepare the article for an eventual run at FAC. Thanks in advance to all editors who review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments You mean the barrage has almost lifted...?! Heh, anyway, another fine article. Just a few things:

  • Don't think there's any need to cite the nickname "Iron Dog" in the lead nor in the infobox, it's cited under the Battle of Jutland subection.
  • 14 dreadnoughts and eight pre-dreadnoughts and a screening force of two armored cruisers, 7 light cruisers, and 54 torpedo boats. Just an example of where you need to check standardation of figure formats - here, at the very least, "7" should be "seven" for consistency with the other single-digit numbers.
  • In Later Operations, is there a particular reason you go from events in 1917, then to 1918, then back to 1917 in the last (and very short) paragraph?
  • Need to check alt text and dab links in the tool box.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • No problems reported with alt text, external links, or disambig links. Well done!
    • Last line of the second intro paragraph reads "Under the orders of Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter, the interned ships were scuttled on 21 June 1919; Derfflinger sank at 14:45." Whose 14:45? Germany's? England's? Was it UTC? Best to clarify that.
    • ...On that note you may want to note whose time is being used in the article. I think this would help avoid any confusion as to what standard is being used to measure the time.
    • In the second paragraph of the construction section you have the following line "On completion she displaced nearly 27,000 tons and was 210 m long." I can not think in metric, and though its mentioned in infobox I think that adding a conversion for 210 m here would be a good idea.
  • Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 08:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But what's the significance of the diagram labeled as 16 December 1916? I couldn't find anything in the text of significance on that date. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The map shows where the various portions of the British and German fleets the morning after the German BCs bombarded Hartlepool, Scarborough, and Whitby. The operation started on the night of the 15th, but most of the significant activity took part on the 16th. Parsecboy (talk) 23:33, 8 September 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.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 11:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bayern class battleship

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Finally, the last class of German battleships. This article passed GA review about a week and a half ago, and I think it's pretty close to A-class standards. I look forward to any and all comments and suggestions directed at improving the article, towards an eventual run at FAC. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • One image (the sinking in Scapa Flow one specifically) lacks alt text, please fix this. Nine disambig links are reported in the article, please locate these and if at all possible fix them. No problems were reported with the external links.
    • Machinery section, first paragraph: "However, as with preceding German dreadnoughts, the engines were not ready by the time construction was completed..." Why weren't the engines ready? Might be worth a mention in the article.
    • Suggestion: If you can, see about adding a picture of the ammunition these battleship carried. I have such an image in the article Armament of the Iowa class battleship, it helps give some idea of the size of the shells being discussed. Such an image could improve this articles quality, I think, although I will not hold this against you if you are unable to locate such an image.
    • It sounds from the basic description of the armour protection that we are talking about something similar to the All or nothing armor scheme. Have you explored this angle at all? It may prove to be an interesting aspect of naval history.
    • WikiSource may have a copy of the Versailles Treaty, if so then I would recommend adding a note to the Fate section providing a link to the text of Article 186.
  • Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added alt text to the image that still needed it, thanks for pointing that out. There is this picture at Navweaps that gives a good size comparison, but it doesn't have any source information. As to the armor, if you look at the lead photo, you can see the main section of the belt stops at the forward barbette, and the reduced thickness goes quite a good deal up to the bow. If you look at a typical all-or-nothing BB, like the KGV], you'll see the armor belt is just the thick portion that covered the section between the forward and rear barbettes. Bayern's armor definitely wasn't anything close to all-or-nothing. I have tracked down Article 186 on Wikisource, and have added it to the article. Thanks, Tom. Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Up to usual standard, can't really see anything to fault. Two suggestions:
    • Bayern's involvement with Operation Albion had come to an abrupt end. seems a bit redundant given the immediately preceding sentences, and over-dramatic compared to the rest of the text.
    • The 'rule' of thumb-size pics appears to have been successfully challenged at FA-level and 250px pics are acceptable; for the images in the body of this article, a larger size certainly seems warranted. However there's also been talk of making the thumb default 250px anyway, so up to you...
Well done, as ever. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for reviewing the article, Ian. I removed the line as you suggested. I think I'll leave the images at the default thumb size for now. When this eventually goes to FAC, we'll see what happens. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
  • Please add in the footnote about the provisional naming of ships under construction you have in all the other ones.
  • Please specify the year of the fleet advance of August 18-19
  • "Along with several 9 light cruisers," Which? Several, or nine? Rather humorous Operation Albion error.
Otherwise looks great as usual, time for articles on all the individual ships, or are you doing L 20 α class battleship? – Joe N 00:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Joe. I've fixed the things you pointed out. I'm afraid I've used up all my sources for the L 20 α design, so until I find something new, that's on the back burner. It's on to the individual ship articles now (and perhaps to SMS Goeben, which would finish out the German BCs). Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright then. One little note: if you are unable to locate the copyright information for the image you found you may wish to link to it via an external link box; in this manner the public can find your image without you having to add it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:52, 25 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.
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.

SMS Hindenburg

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Yes, another article from the German Imperial Navy. This one is short and sweet: the ship was only in commission for the last year of the war before she was interned and sunk at Scapa Flow, and as such saw no combat. Regardless of her largely inactive career, I think the article is close to A-class, so here we are. I appreciate any and all comments towards improving the article. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • No problems reported with alt text or external links. One disambig link needs to be located and if at all possible fixed.
    • I would consider removing the word dubious from the line concerning her being the last ship to sink at Scapa flow, that seems a little...iffy, for lack of a better word.
    • A word of advice from one contributor to another: when MBK and I made our push to get Illinois to FA status we encountered a lot - and I do mean a lot - of resistance because of the length of the article. If you intend to go to FA after this you may want to take into consideration the length bais, as I am sure someone will oppose on those grounds.
  • I think that was JonCatalan who wrote and nominated the Arena article. I recall reading through that FAC at the time (though I didn't end up commenting on it), and Sandy repeatedly reminded editors that there's no size requirement for FAs. I'd assume she'd do the same if that issue popped up again. Parsecboy (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Tom. I removed "dubious" per your suggestion. Yeah, I know you guys had problems with Illinois at FAC, and I think the people who opposed the article then weren't as familiar with FA criteria as they might have thought. For a ship that saw no major action and was in service for only 1 year, I think this is pretty comprehensive, which is all the FA criteria requires. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I cannot support this article, since it makes such a basic mistake as to call a Battlecruiser a Dreadnought. This is a term which, rightly, only applies to battleships. I attempted to correct this slight, but Parsecboy stubbornly refuses to allow it to stand. Changed to support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided numerous sources on the talk page that use the term "dreadnought" to refer to battlecruisers; who is being stubborn? Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - for anyone who wants to review this detail further, see the discussion on the article's talk page here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It astounds me how you manage to get so much right about WWI-era warships' technical details, yet insist on being wrong regarding a simple matter of classification terminology. Just 3 little words, that's all I ask.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that you are unequivocally wrong in your assumption about to what the term "dreadnought" applies. I have provided a number of reliable sources that demonstrate the falsehood of your position, yet you dismiss them as "wrong." I don't know about anyone else, but I'd take the word of a 40-year veteran of the Royal Navy over yours. Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a type of guitar named after HMS Dreadnought also. By your same logic, we may as well call Hindenburg a guitar. Oh, and check my sources.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a strawman, and a total distortion of my argument. I won't dignify it with further response. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's called facetiousness, but I can't expect you to know the difference.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see nothing that fails to meet the criteria. R.D.H. has failed to provide cites for his definition, but Parsecboy has provided multiple instances supporting his usage. Good work. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. Do keep up with current events and check em out:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Keep all this for the record: Note. Do you mind if this section is removed from "Fate": "Unaware that the deadline had been extended to the 23rd..." Fremantle, as reported in Marder (From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow. Volume V. p. 277.) stated that he unofficially informed von Reuter of the extension of the deadline. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 22:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, Herwig in Luxury Fleet explicitly states the opposite: Vice Admiral Sir Sydney Fremantle ordered the British naval forces guarding Scapa Flow out to sea for routine exercises without informing Reuter that the Armistice had been extended to 23 June by the Council of Four in Paris (page 256). I wonder what other sources have to say on the matter...Parsecboy (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bennet's Naval Battles of the First World War states The conflict between Fremantle's responsibilities and his orders was, however, seemingly resolved on the night of the 20th. He learned—and at once sent word to von Reuter—that the armistice was to be extended for 48 hours. Could be that Herwig is mistaken, or that von Reuter later claimed to have not known the armistice had been extended. Parsecboy (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I can only assume that Fremantle made the assertion in his published memoirs, My Naval Career: 1880-1928. Also, Marder corresponded with Fremantle towards the end of the latter's life. Van der Vat (The Grand Scuttle. p. 179.) writes "Fremantle always maintained afterwards that he had informed Reuter 'unofficially' of the extension before the scuttling". At the very least Fremantle's claim is verifiable. I'm assuming Herwig is simply repeating whatever von Reuter later said in justification. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 22:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My issues have been addressed. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 15:39, 20 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.
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.
Promoted by the_ed17 [1]

Derfflinger class battlecruiser

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


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 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]
    • Thanks for reviewing the article, Sturmvogel. I added conversions where necessary (though I used the {{convert|xxx|MT}} format, which gives the same results as the version you suggested). Parsecboy (talk) 19:40, 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.
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.

SMS König

edit
Promoted -MBK004 01:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Another German battleship article. This passed GA just last week, and I think it's ready for A-class. I appreciate any and all comments that help me improve the article towards an eventual FAC. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • No problems reported with external links. One map image needs alt text. Due to a malfunction, I am currently unable to check disambig links.
    • In the construction section you 45 million goldmarks; as before I would like to (eventually) see an adjusted for inflation value. Not holding this against you, just something to add when and if you finally locate a converter.
  • Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:07, 3 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.
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.

König class battleship

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Another one of my WWI German battleship class articles (don't worry, there's only Bayern class battleship after this! Before I start working on all the of the individual ships...) Anyways, I think the article is at or close to A-class, and the reviews that will be done here will help me fine-tune the article for an eventual FAC. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I'm ten minutes into a break at the moment with only another 10 minutes left to borrow against, so I can not preform a thorough review at the moment. I can tell you that the external links check out ok, but you have two disambig links that need to be located and if at all possible fixed. Also, it appears that some images are missing alt text, please check and advise on them. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your welcome. Now for the more thorough review points:
    • Stateside Americans can't think in metric; could you translate the weapon sizes into standard measurements so we can have a better idea of what the battleships of the class were packing?
    • The second paragraph of the design section brings money into the equation. The mark of 1918 and the current mark are probably off due to inflation; would it be possible to get a dollar figure for 1918 or adjust the mark inflation for 2008/2009? It would better the understanding of the expense the Reichstag approved for the construction of these big ships.
    • Otherwise everything else appears to be in good order. Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added conversions for the weapon sizes. As to the second issue, we have {{Inflation}}, but it only goes as far back as 1950 for Germany. I don't have anything to convert 1914 marks into dollars or pounds, and haven't been able to find anything online yet. I have found this book, which states that in May 1921, it was 62.30 marks to the dollar, but this was well into the post-war financial panic in Germany. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well written, referenced and illustrated. I made a couple of minor tweaks (endashes, consolidated refs, reference format etc.) but otherwise I couldn't see anything holding it back. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:58, 31 July 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.
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.

HMS Endeavour

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Euryalus (talk)


The article passed GA last year, and got a fairly clean bill of health at a WP:SHIPS peer review in June. After endless tinkering about with it, I think it might meet the A-class criteria but am too close to it to spot any obvious gaps or copyediting issues. All comments and criticisms welcome. Euryalus (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • No problems reported with disambig links. One external link reported as suspicious, please check and advise. Alt text, so far as I can tell, looks to be in place and properly used.
    • In the section "Purchase and refit by the admiralty", the fifth paragrpah starts off by stating "The new cabins provided around two square metres of floorspace apiece...". How do we define two square meters in terms of feet and inches?
    • Why is there a commons link in the replica section? I was under the impression that we were to place all those links for commons and such at the bottom of the page. Has something changed, or is this just a unique case of needs for the article?
  • Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Replies
        • Suspicious link - I've replaced the use of this link with references from other sources, as all its contents also appeared elsehwre. Hope this addresses the issue - let me know if I missed one.
        • Conversion to sq. ft - Conversion template added, comes to 22 square feet. Given this is an approximation of cabin space I didn't go to inches, but can do if you think it adds to the understanding of the sentence.
        • Commonscat - My mistake, removed.
      • Overall, thanks for taking the time to comment and I hope the above addresses the points you raised. Euryalus (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am happy now. My above complaints have been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 13:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it correct to say that the National Library is the publisher of Cook's diary. It seems they have only scanned it and put it on the web. If I get an old PD book and scan it and put it on WP, that doesn't make WP the publisher does it? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Hard to say. The National Library (NLA) holds the original of Cook's Journal and publishes it on its website, so maybe Cook himself is the publisher as he produced the copy they're transcribing. However Cook didn't publicly publish it in any meaningful way, and as far as I know it was first properly published in its entirety by Elliot Stock in 1893.
    • So - is the NLA the publisher as they published the website used to reference the article? Or is Cook the publisher as well as the author, as he produced the copy the NLA scanned? Or should I avoid this conundrum altogether by getting a book version of the Journal and citing that instead?Euryalus (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update - As the issue remains unresolved, I've avoided it by replacing the National Library web cites from Cook's Journal with references directly to a published edition by J.C. Beaglehole, who is probably the pre-eminent Cook historian as his slightly hagiographic Wikipedia article makes clear. Beaglehole published Cook's Journal in its entirely (which is more than the National Library did), and has a definitive publisher in Cambridge University Press. The problem still exists on a smaller scale with the passing references to journals by Hawkesworth and Banks, which are also on the National Library website, but I'll replace these with something more definitive over the weekend. Euryalus (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Further update - all NLA refs now replaced with ones with a definitive publisher (either Parkin (Miegunyah Press) or Beaglehole (Cambridge University Press)). I hope this addresses the issue - luckily Endeavour is well-documented enough that claims can usually be referenced from more than one reliable source. Euryalus (talk) 07:36, 25 July 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.
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.

SMS Blücher

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


I rewrote this article a couple of weeks ago; it passed GA yesterday. I think it's pretty close to A-class; the extra eyes that will look the article over during this review will help me to iron out the fine details in order for an eventual FAC. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, neither Conway's or Groner mention that. Herwig's Luxury Fleet doesn't mention it either. Do you happen to have Brown's book handy? I searched in google books, but nothing came up for the ship and its ihp. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support Another excellent article. Took the liberty of my usual copyedit for prose but detail and referencing are fine. The only thing preventing me giving unequivocal support right now is that the intro talks about Hipper making what seems a calculated/opportunistic decision to 'abandon' Blucher to the RN to make good the escape of the rest of High Seas Fleet, yet this wasn't the impression I got reading the battle details in the main body of the article. If he did indeed make a conscious decision, it may be just a matter of adding a sentence and citation to Service History. Two other suggestions, but support isn't be conditional on these:
    • Structure: the subheading World War I in the Service History section seems redundant without any other subsections there.
    • Supporting materials: the two pictures captioned SMS Blucher could be dated to provide a tad more detail. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:09, 28 July 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.
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.

Kaiser class battleship

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Another one of my German dreadnought class articles :) This passed GA some time ago, and after a bit more work, I think it's ready for A-class. I appreciate any and all comments towards improving the article. Thanks in advance! Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment(s)
    • No problems reported with your external links. Two disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed.
    • First Intro paragraph, last line, "As was usual for German battleships of the period, the Kaiser class mounted main guns that were smaller than those of their British rivals". Why was this usual? I would recommend on elaborating on this a little, it strikes me as something worth going into.
    • Our article on the German naval laws do not explain why the service life of the battleships was reduced from 25 years to 20 years. See if you can elaborate on this point, it definitely deserves a greater mention.
    • Propulsion section, first paragraph, second line: "...an alternative to the Parsons turbine monopoly." I would recommend linking to the Parsons article, even if we do not have one, and elaborating a little on the monopoly aspect since it seems important to the history of these ships.
    • The last part of the armament section references torpedo tubes as being common to the design of German ships at the time. Why? I would recommend elaborating on this a little.
    • Although not necessary, I would suggest trimming a little from the Jutland section, it seems rather long for the article's subject matter. I list this as an optional suggestion, so I will not hold this one against you if you decide not to trim the section.
  • Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got the two dab links. I'm looking into the first point you raised, about the "smaller main guns than the British" bit. I know I read somewhere the explanation for why the Germans preferred the smaller caliber gun, but I haven't yet managed to track it down. When I do, I'll add it in a note. The next two points I think I've addressed in the article, can you take a look and see if what I've added is sufficient? For the last one, the Jutland section is a bit long, but I don't know what should be trimmed without losing some important supporting facts. Like, the stuff about the BCs isn't really relevant to the article, but I think it would be pretty bad to just drop the reader into the "run to the north", without any explanation of what got the two fleets to that point. Parsecboy (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't seen anything just yet, but it does seem that most if not all BBs and BCs of the era carried a few torpedo tubes; all of the pre-Washington American and British BBs were equipped with submerged tubes, as did the Japanese, French, and Russian BBs of the period. It's probably a legacy of pre-dreadnought designs that were designed to fight at very close range (these torpedoes generally had a range of only a few kilometers). It does seem odd that they were retained. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few comments
  • "However, the diesel was not ready in time to be installed in Prinzregent Luitpold, so the ship ..."
The diesel or the engine? It's just that (in my little, sleep-deprived brain) "diesel" and "installed" don't seem to go together... I'm 90% sure this isn't a mistake, but just checking.
  • "At maximum elevation, the guns had a range of up to 16,299 m (17,825 yd). The mountings were later modified to depress to -5.5 degrees and elevate to 16 degrees. This extended the maximum range of 20,400 m (67,000 ft)."
Why first yards then feet? (I added the bold marks, to show what I mean)
  • "The ships also lost speed up to 66 percent and heeled over 8 degrees. The ships had a transverse metacentric height of 2.59 m (8.5 ft)."
Sounds awkward to begin two consecutive sentences with 'the ships'.

I wasn't able to look over the entire article, seeing as I'm going to leave for a little vacation tomorrow morning - what I have seen looks very good. Icy // ♫ 20:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. I've fixed the things you pointed out. It always amazes me how I can miss little, but seemingly glaring things like the yards/feet conversion thing. Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks are encouraged, see WP:REDLINK. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good, only a couple minor stylistic errors that I corrected. Just wondering, do you plan on making an FT along the lines of German battleships of World War I? – Joe N 12:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I believe that this article meets the criteria. However, I have the following comments which I think should be looked at (although my support is not dependant upon them being addressed):
    • what's a superfiring turret? (I'm mainly a land animal so don't know much about ships, but it doesn't seem to be apparent in the article and the term is not wikilinked. Could you perhaps link it or briefly explain the term?)
    • there is some overlink, e.g. World War I has two links in the lead, also Scapa Flow is linked a couple times throughout the article, might be some others I missed.

Anyway, good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rupert. I linked to Superfire (it just means that one gun turret is superimposed over another, so the upper turret can fire over the top of the lower one). I also removed the extra links you pointed out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 18 July 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.
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.

SS American (1900)

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)


This article is about another of the steamers of the American-Hawaiian Steamship Company. This one was credited with sinking a ship in U.S. Navy service during World War I; unfortunately for the Americans, it was another U.S. Navy ship. The article has passed a GA review and I believe that it fulfills the A-Class requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
  • "American-Hawaiian signed contract with the Tehuantepec National Railway of Mexico," Do you mean a contract?
  • "six men he had personally saved to a life raft" Perhaps escorted would be better than saved here?

Again, minor issues. – Joe N 20:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another helpful review, Joe. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - feel free to disregard if you feel that the suggested change would not help the article.
    • This may sound dumb, but the thought just occurred to me...should "propeller" be linked?
    • Should a short description of what the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is be included in the lead? I don't want to have to click on the link becuase I have no idea what it is, but I'm kinda forced to. :)
    • "Taken up for wartime service after the United States entered World War I in April 1917, [...]" 'Taken up' seems awkward to me...
    • Should "round trip" be hyphenated?
    • "She was sold in 1926 and taken to Osaka where she was broken up sometime after her arrival there in November." - November 1926, 1927? What year?
    • "However, when the United States entered World War I in April 1917, the entire American-Hawaiian fleet, including American, was requisitioned by the United States Shipping Board (USSB), which then returned the ships for operation by American-Hawaiian." - 'requistioned' -> 'returned the ships'?
      • Basically, the USSB requisitioned all privately owned ships over a certain size, which included the American-Hawaiian fleet. The USSB wanted to control what got shipped where, etc., with war cargoes and materiel given priority, but did not want to dirty their hands in the day-to-day operations. So, in the case of American-Hawaiian at least, the USSB let A-H operate the ships, but when and where the USSB told them to. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "American, which was lightly damaged by the collision,[4] [...]" - would '...was not heavily damaged...' sound better? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments, Ed. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 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.
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.

Yorktown class gunboat

edit
Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)


This article is about the first class of steel-hulled gunboats of the United States Navy. The article has passed a GA review and I believe that it fulfills the A-Class requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with a few comments:
    • "After a three-year hiatus from 1903 to 1906, ..." Define what you mean by "hiatus"?
    • "After another stint in the Far East in 1894, Concord spent a year out of commission at San Francisco. In January 1898, Concord returned to the Asiatic Station, and joined Admiral George Dewey's fleet " What happened after she was recommissioned in 1896?
      • I reworded Concord's summary to explain that she was out of commission from May 1896 to May 1897, and that most of the rest of 1897 was spent in Alaskan waters. I was trying to be too tight with the summary, I think. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images look to be appropriately licensed.
    • References and sources look good. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.
  • Can turtleback deck be linked in Layout?
    • From what I can surmise, I think it just means a deck with a crown in the middle (like a modern-day American football field with artificial turf with a slight slope to the edges). I don't have any source to back it up and would be reluctant to change the wording from the source.
  • That's what I guessed from the description, but it'd be nice if there were some article on it if it's a common design. Oh well. – Joe N 23:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you say who the Secretary of the Navy who Yorktown hosted was?
  • The Secretary of the Navy present at the Great White Fleet's entrance into San Francisco was Victor H. Metcalf. Ref: Albertson, Mark (2007). U.S.S. Connecticut: Constitution State Battleship. Mustang, Oklahoma: Tate Publishing. p. 48. ISBN 1598867393. OCLC 173513595. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 18:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bennington was attached to the Squadron of Evolution and for its cruise to South America." Awkward.
Few more comments than normal, but still good. – Joe N 17:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments are good, though: they make the article that much better. Thanks, Joe. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:33, 21 May 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.
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.

Tucker class destroyer

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)


This article is about one of the classes of World War I "thousand tonner" destroyers of the United States Navy. The article has passed a GA review and I believe that it fulfills the A-Class requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:52, 8 May 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.
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.

SM UB-16

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)


This article is about one of the last several German Type UB I submarines of World War I. The article has passed a GA review and I believe that it fulfills the A-Class requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:35, 3 May 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.
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.

SM UB-14

edit
Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)


This article is about one of the more successful German Type UB I submarines of World War I. The article has passed a GA review and I believe that it fulfills the A-Class requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is yet another great article which meets the A-class criteria. Some comments:
    • The HMT Southland article states that she was carrying only Australian soldiers when attacked by UB-14, not 'ANZAC' troops (note the 'NZ' in ANZAC is for New Zealand).
    • I'm little a bit uncomfortable with the implied speculation that the submarine operated in the Mediterranean during late 1916 and early 1917 and took part in the occupation of Sevestapol in 1918 - it might be better to remove this material. Given the sub's age and extensive service by this time she could be missing from the sources because she was in port for refits. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the 1916–1917 span, I have no idea what, if anything, UB-14 did in that span. Just that it wasn't in the Black Sea. It's kind of a darned-if-you-do-darned-if-you-don't thing: from past experience at article reviews, there's always the inevitable "But what happened in the gap from this year to that year?" kind of question. Any way, if you think the implication is too strong, I could omit that entire paragraph. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the Sevastopol bit, since UB-14 had operated off the port while Germany and Russia were at war, I felt it important to explain that the Central Powers had taken possession of the port. I was trying to tie the two parts of the paragraph together, but I think it still works OK leaving that out, so I've reworded it. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent as usual, with one comment: "Between shellfire from the Turkish shore batteries and E7's scuttling charges—von Heimburg and company narrowly escaped harm." is broken up by the dash which makes it awkward, perhaps it could be rephrased to use a comma or semicolon? – Joe N 00:34, 1 May 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.
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.

SM UB-10

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)


This article is about the first of the German Type UB I submarines of World War I to enter service. The article has passed a GA review and I believe that it fulfills the A-Class requirements. (Note: Shields appears as an ambiguous via the link in the toolbox; I'm not sure if it is North Shields or South Shields which is why I have left it.) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, but this time I did find one problem: the phrase "were all landed safely.[26]" should not be passive, and should explain what "landed" means...Were they taken prisoner by the U-boat? Escaped in lifeboats to England or Belgium? – Joe N 00:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry it took so long; I had to dig through the news archives. What I found was the sentence "The British steamer Fulgens … has been sunk. The crew has been landed." Typically, this means they were picked up by a non-enemy vessel and taken to some port, somewhere. (If they had all been taken captive—not a common occurrence—a news article would likely have stated that fact.) Given the scant details in the source, I changed the sentence to read …the crew of the ship—UB-10's largest victim to-date[16]—were all saved. which is about as definitive as anyone can be. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent work, as usual. Just a few minor comments/questions:
  • Do the sources say why the boat was converted to a minelayer? Was it part of a new strategy or campaign?
  • Do the sources give the depth of the water where the boat was scuttled?
    • No. From the coordinates provided, it was right off the Zeebrugge Mole, which was apparently deep enough for a British cruiser during the Zeebrugge Raid. Coincidentally, I've not seen anything that says the wreck was raised, nor have I seen anything that says the wreck is still there, either.
  • I assume that Uboat.net is considered a reliable source, much like CombinedFleet.com.
  • You don't have inline citations within the footnotes, which I assume means that each foonote is attributed to the reference cited near it in its parent paragraph.
  • Again, questions on minor points aside, excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great article. Minor comments: The second sentence in the intro ("The submarine was scuttled in October 1918") seems out of place chronologically; also, the scuttling is mentioned a second time at the end of the intro anyway. Who rescued the crew of Fulgens - the submarine crew or someone else? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 30 April 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.
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.

SMS Seydlitz

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


I recently rewrote and greatly expanded the article, and it just passed GA. I think it's at or close to A, with maybe some minor copyediting to be done. I appreciate all comments towards ironing out the article, towards an eventual run at FAC. Thanks in advance! Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is a very good article which meets the criteria. My comments for further development are:
    • There's a bit too much repetition of Seydlitz, and the name of the ship is often repeated in adjacent sentences. This could be mixed up a bit by using words like 'she', 'her' and 'the ship'
    • Is there anything particularly remarkable about "Financial constraints meant that there would have to be a trade off between speed, battle capabilities, and displacement." - this is true for almost every warship ever produced, and so this sentence could be toned down
    • The 'World War I' section is good, but only covers the operations the ship was involved in. A para or two on what she did between these operations (eg, sit at anchor with occasional exercises and overhauls) would be good.
    • If you take the article to a FAC someone is bound to ask whether File:SMS Seydlitz 1916 1-350 .jpg is PD given that its a photo of a model (eg, is it a reproduction of an artwork or equivalent?). I personally don't care, but someone else will. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll get on fixing the repetition of "Seydlitz", perhaps tomorrow (which I guess is today, according to zulu time). For your second point: yes, I guess that's true, I'll take a look at that as well. Unfortunately, with the exception of the mine damage to the ship during the second Yarmouth operation (mainly because it delayed the sortie that resulted in Jutland), there is little available, at least in English language sources, that states what the ship was doing. Presumably, she was sitting around in Wilhelmshaven or Kiel, with the crew twiddling their thumbs, but I don't know if there's much value added in mentioning that after every operation. As for the photo, and I'm by no means an expert on copyright (especially the more complex stuff like photos of models), I think that if the uploader were to state that s/he was the creator of the model, then there wouldn't be an issue, even if models do fall under the reproduction of artwork restriction. But I'll leave that to the image people at FAC to decide for sure :) Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a little while to get to this, but I've re-uploaded all of the images you noted back to en.wiki, with the appropriate license templates. As for the one of the ship after Jutland, if it will need to go, I can always upload one of these images and replace it.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is an OCLC? Thanks again, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, the images are good enough; I just wanted to hit the ones I knew what to do with. The others can be left to the good (and mush more knowledgeable) image reviewers at FAC.
I'll do it :P —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of that! Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Just two issues:
  • Please explain the bit about her being manned by the crew of York, that confuses me.
  • "A month later, the German Revolution began; it toppled the monarchy and led to the Armistice that ended the war.[72]" That was not a month after October 24, did you mean week?
An interesting read that actually taught me something, good luck at FAC. – Joe N 20:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I meant "next month", not "a month later", thanks for catching that :) I clarified that Yorck had just been withdrawn from active service, is that better now? Parsecboy (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, excellent. – Joe N 21:50, 13 April 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.
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.

Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais

edit
Nominator(s): —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs)


An early dreadnought, Minas Gerais did virtually nothing of note after the "Revolt of the Whip" and so there is little information on the ship. However, I believe that I have the most comprehensive article on the ship that is on the web. Note: I am aware that there are a couple of stories in Spanish about Minas Gerais and her sister on the Brazilian Navy's website, but as they don't entirely match up with the information in the other sources I used, I have not used any information from the stories. This passed GA after a review from Bellhalla (talk · contribs). —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues Resolved
  • Comments - from the top, in my usual style:
  • Infobox and Lead
    • In "Displacement", could you specify whether those are long tons, short tons, tonnes?
    • Do you know the breakdown of her crew (officers/crewmen)?
    • For the armament, do you know what the arrangement of the main guns was (4X3, 6X2)?
    • Where was she built (Sao Paulo, Rio)?
    • Minas Gerais, named after the province of the same name, the use of "named" and "name" in the same sentence is awkward, is there another word you could use?
    • She was the lead ship of her class of two, "of two" is unnecessary.
    • Soon after joining the Navy, Minas Gerais was the focal point of the "Revolt of the Whip", where members of the crew threatened to bombard the Brazilian capital of Rio de Janeiro if certain demands were not met. - what year was this? Put it right in the lead
    • only one six-pounder shot was fired, and São Paulo then sailed for Montevideo, where the mutineers made their escape. Again, awkward wording. Consider "only one six-pounder shot was fired, before São Paulo sailed for Montevideo, where the mutineers made their escape". As another thing, which ship fired the shot?
    • Minas Gerais was not involved in much action after that - there's gotta be a more eloquent way of saying this.
    • she was inactive for most of the rest of her career - awkward. Consider rewording "she was relatively inactive for the rest of her career"
  • Background
    • By 1900, Brazil had fallen to the third largest South American naval power behind Chile and Argentina. - the use of "fallen" makes it sound as though it was defeated by the third largest naval power. Consider "By 1900, Brazil's maritime development had fallen to third in South America, behind Chile and Argentina." or something to that effect (OSTTE)
    • This was due to the revolution of 1889, in which Deodoro da Fonseca deposed Pedro II of Brazil and the navy had fallen in disrepair—indeed, the navy was comprised of only two coastal defense battleships and two cruisers in 1900. just doesn't flow, I'm not sure how to fix it.
    • Some of the extra money gained from this economic growth was used to finance the Building Programme of 1904; - do we know how much (percentage, rough estimates)?
    • For the measurements of the gun barrels and armour, could you use a convert template so both inches and cm are displayed? I know, it's a metric-conversion anal-retentive thing, but it's considered standard.
    • After this was completed, a new contract was made up and signed on 20 February 1907. - "made up" just doesn't seem right; "formulated" perhaps?
    • The ships shocked Brazil's neighbors, especially Argentina, as the dreadnoughts from Brazil "outclassed the entire Argentinian fleet." - the use of "Brazil" twice in the same sentence makes for really awkward wording, consider "the ships shocked Brazil's neighbors, notably Argentina, as the Brazilian dreadnoughts 'outclassed the entire Argentinian fleet.'", OSTTE
    • Brazil's order meant that they laid down a dreadnought before other, more traditional, powers like Germany - the commas in the middle really break it up, could it possibly be reworded "Brazil's order meant that they laid down a dreadnought before many of the other major maritime powers, such as Germany", OSTTE
    • At that time, it was technically the British Empire, not the UK.
  • Early career
    • Could this section and the next be combined, they just don't seem long enough to be split up.
    • Soon after, the prosperity which had marked the rise in Brazil's status was reversing, and a depression hit the Brazilian economy hard;[1] this coupled with British naval mutinies over pay cuts,[10] racism prevalent in all branches of the Brazilian armed forces,[11] and the severe discipline enforced upon Brazilian ships spawned a mutiny from the sailors on the most powerful ships in Brazil's fleet, called the "Revolt of the Whip".[10][11] - I know people who can run a mile in the time it takes me to say that sentence, it needs to be broken up into smaller manageable bits.
  • "Revolt of the Whip"
    • Minas Gerais, unhappy with their treatment, began planning an uprising earlier in 1910 - what aspects of their treatment, the pay? The conditions? The racism? The benefits? The dental?
    • However, in mid-November, a sailor was sentenced to be flogged 250[12] times in front of his fellow sailors,[11] even though the practice had been banned by law;[10] when the punishment was administered, it was not stopped even when he fainted.[11] - period following "after law" please.
    • Could a bit more detail be gone into concerning the bill that "reversed the amnesty"?
    • his, and the possibility of the capital being bombarded,[11] forced the Congress of Brazil to give into the demands of the rebels,[11] which included the abolition of flogging, the improvement of living conditions, and the granting of amnesty from the government.[10] - you sure you're not having an affair with long sentences?
  • First World War
    • However, the war had crushing effects on Brazil's economy, as prices for both rubber and coffee plummeted: the war had no need for rubber and the United Kingdom allowed no coffee into Europe with its import policy (the space occupied by coffee could be used for more "essential items") and its blockade of the mainland. - you know that I'm going to say, right?
    • Do you have a number for how many Brazilian merchantships were sunk during the war?
    • Other than that, looks good
  • Inter-war period
    • Hold on a second. If her boilers failed, how did she return to Rio?
    • Which turrets are "B and X"? What did the other turrets receive?
    • However, São Paulo was only able to sway a geriatric torpedo boat to her cause; frustrated, her crew fired a six-pounder shot into her sister which wounded one sailor.[19][20] - period after "cause".
    • What was the gun angle before the modernization?
    • The guns were also overhauled during this; two extra 4.7-in. guns were added (making 14 total), and six 20-mm. were installed, - the use of "during this" is too awkward. During this what? Add the word "modernization" and it'll be perfect
  • Second World War and later career
    • Does the date where the declaration took effect really need to be there?
      • it's for context. Would anyone in the Northern Hemisphere know when Brazil declared war?
    • The first sentence is too short to be its own paragraph
    • Did anything of interest happen in Salvador? I know that Montevideo was visited by a German pocket battleship in the early war, anything of the like happen w/ Brazil (U-Boat raids, etc)?
      • Not to my knowledge, and I'd assume that it'd be mentioned in the article if it did. Also, keep in mind that Minas Gerais was undergoing a refit into 1943, so all of the commerce raiders were gone by that time. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all the best, Cam (Chat) 04:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I echo many of Cam's comments above, plus:

  • "UK" should not be written as "U.K."
  • "coupled with British naval mutinies over pay cuts" - what does this have to do with the Brazilian fleet?
  • "who immediately sped up their timetable" - is there a more elegant way of saying this?
  • "After murdering a few officers" - use of "a few" makes it sound like a trival action to my ear, "several" would be better, an exact figure best. Also, can you name the captain?
  • "on the ship" - ship used too frequently, try "kept on board" or similar.
  • "they could not do much to stop the mutineers" - much, or anything at all? Be clear.
  • "The government did give them official pardons and a statement of regret, but a decree was passed on the 28th that many considered to reverse the amnesty" - firstly, use "28 November" instead of "28th". Secondly, what does this mean? Did they arrest people for the mutiny (in which case the amnesty was reversed) or didn't they (in which case it seems to have held).
  • "war was declared on the 25th" as above, give the month.
  • "sailed out of the harbor and sailed to" - second "sailed" is redundant

Otherwise good, --Jackyd101 (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that these have all been addressed. I have no name for the captain, by the way. Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A few changes.
  • Why would the design changes after Dreadnaught make it so that only two could be built?
  • How does the world not need rubber during WWI? I know it wasn't as vital as it was in WWII, but still, trucks, guns? Surely war would use a lot of rubber.
  • Please clarify so it doesn't seem like only the US and Germany are at war in WWI.
  • The bit about San Paulo's boilers failing confuses me, did they fail on the trip, and if so why did they fail then, and not during the training exercises she had presumably undergone?
Otherwise looks good, a fun read - I never knew that Brazil had battleships. – Joe N 21:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joe! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gold had been discovered in Minas Gerais in the 1700s, was there another gold rush or something similiar that pumped some extra money into the government's coffers to help pay for the ship? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I forgot to reply to your query on the talk page; my apologies. I don't know what exactly happened; all I know is that Conway's 1906–1921 on p. 403 says this:

Brazil entered the twentieth century with high aspirations. The country was in an era of prosperity. Brazil controlled the world's coffee and rubber markets. Gold had been discovered and offered the hope of great wealth. The political unrest that had occurred in the transition from Empire to Republic seemed to be over. True, problems lay ahead, but it seemed that many had been solved. (emphasis mine)

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.
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.

Australian light destroyer project

edit
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)


This relatively new article has recently been peer reviewed (albeit with few comments) and I think that it now meets the A-class criteria and would like to submit it for the consideration of other editors. Comments on how to further develop the article would also be appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - (this version)
    • One disambig and zero external links need attention.
    • Link to the specific 5" gun in the infobox? What caliber was it going to be?
    • Are Willis and Loxton the same? (different titles, but both have "Royal Australian Navy. A Survey of Future Needs August 1972. Parliamentary Paper No. 138. Canberra: The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia."
    • "$A355 million" - is there a link for the Aussie dollar? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for those comments. None of the sources specify which type of 5" gun the ship was going to be fitted with. The model used to illustrate the entry in the 1972-73 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships appears to be armed with a 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, but the design was never finalised and none of the sources specify this or any other weapon. Willis and Loxton wrote different sections in a pamphlet put out by the Australian Government (no editor is credited for the pamphlet) - I've used the chapter field of the citation template to distinguish this. User:Ottre has now added a link to the $A. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • (@ gun) - there would have been only two options for a five-inch gun; the Mark 42 or the Mark 45 (25 cal were meant as AA weapons for pre-WWII treaty cruisers, 38 cal is not as good against surface targets (and who cares about AA effectiveness when you are in the missile age?), and the 51 cal were mounted on pre-1920's battleships. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The extent of the information I've been able to find is a statement that "the armament will be a single 5 in using the same ammunition as the DDGs [the RAN's Perth class destroyers, which were armed with two 5"/54 caliber Mark 42 guns] with a fire control system developed from that already fitted in the later River Class destroyers and recently fitted in the Darings" (Loxton, p. 21). As such, while it strongly appears that the gun would have been the 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun, this isn't stated anywhere - presumably as the project was canceled before the design was finalised. It's not impossible that the RAN would have used 5"/54 caliber Mark 42 guns as a cost-saving measure given that the DDLs costs were becoming a major concern even at the time initial approval was granted. Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • For whatever reason, I didn't finish my thought above. :-) I think that you could put something like this in the article: "The destroyers would have utilized either the Mark 42 or the brand-new Mark 45 5"/54 caliber gun.<ref group=A>Loxton, p. 21 stated that "the armament [would] be a single 5 in using the same ammunition as the DDGs [the RAN's Perth class destroyers, which were armed with two 5"/54 caliber Mark 42 guns] with a fire control system developed from that already fitted in the later River class destroyers and recently fitted in the Daring's."</ref> —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I just found two very useful cabinet submissions in the National Archives of Australia. The description of the gun in the final submission on the DDL in 1976 is that it was going to be a '5"/54 caliber light weight' gun. Is this another name for the 5"/54 caliber Mark 45? Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 22 March 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.
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.

Amagi class battlecruiser

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk), the ed17 (talk)


Ed and I created this article in January, and it passed GA at the end of the month. We temporarily back-burnered it while we completed other projects, but we feel the article is at least close to A-class, if not already there. We appreciate any and all comments towards improving the article. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Quick one for now, I'll do some more tomorrow. Would suggest moving one of the photos from the bottom of the article to the infobox to get rid of that ugly 'No Free Photo' text. Skinny87 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I hadn't put one of the two lower photos in the infobox is that it's not really representative of the topic (i.e., it shows the Akagi after her conversion, not what she would have looked like as a battlecruiser). There are a couple of line drawings floating around (one at Global Security, and one in Conway's), but I'm not sure if either one would qualify for fair-use. Parsecboy (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the 10 requirements of fair-use would be met here; it's not like a free alternative exists, and any "free" one made from Conway's or anything else would be a derivative work. So, going on this assumption, we have three choices:
  • Global Security, in color and clear but very boxy.
  • Conway's, which is good except that it is really faded.
  • Whatever this site is, which is the best print. Problem is, it's not reliable for sure. Can we say that it is o.k. because it is similar to Conway's? (I mean, what are the major differences between that and the line drawing in Conway's? ...actually, I think that they copied Conway's, but that's a whole different boat.) Regardless, it's nearly identical to Conway's and it's much clearer. Thoughts? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a scanner, let me scan up the version in Conway's, and we'll go from there. Parsecboy (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that would be helpful. :) I was thinking of hitting 'print screen' on the Google Books page. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it took me a while to get it to scan correctly (it's always a pain trying to scan from a thick book), but here it is. Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I'm going to crop it a bit to focus more on the ship and eliminate some of the white, but that should do fine. Thanks! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments:

  • In the Design section, there's a lot of repetition of 'would have had' - could you try and vary this in places? For example, 'It was planned' and that sort of thing
  • Needs a lot more detail on its service during WWII; masses has been written on Midway, and this article needs a bit more on the service of Akagi, especially during Midway. For example, how she was sunk, if she sank any vessels in return, how well she performed. Skinny87 (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when there's just one of a ship (as there was in the case of Akagi), it usually doesn't have a class article. All of the technical data that would go in the class article is just placed in the ship article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can't say fairer than that! Move to support. Skinny87 (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written article. The background section especially does a good job at concisely but fully detailing the related Imperial Japanese Navy history related to the subject. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The most important conflict it participated in, WWII, is covered by half a para near the end. It should be expanded at least into its own section, summarizing the history of Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi. The article has no information on where exactly the ship was sunk (there should be at least some geotag estimates), and it has insufficient categories (it has only one category, "Ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy"). Until this is corrected, it is not ready for A-class.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please rephrase "The planned fuel stores amounted to 3,900 tons of oil and 2,500 tons of coal; at a speed of 14 kts, this would have enabled a maximum range of 8,000 nautical miles" as it doesn't scan easily.
    • I reworded it, does it read better now?
  • I am not familiar with the [A 1] citation convention and have not seen it elsewhere. Maybe it should be avoided in favour of "conventional" citations.
    • The actual citations are in the standard format; the [A 1] footnotes that explain things in the text (like the one that explains what "caliber" means, since the usual meaning of the word is the diameter of a tube, not its length)
  • Suggest change "The guns fired 2,205 lbs. (1,000 kg) armor-piercing projectiles with a propellant charge weighing 494 lbs." to "with a 494lb propellant charge"
    • Done.
  • The use of lbs. is clumsy. I would suggest auto-convert with 494 pounds (224 kg) (see source): that is clearly MOS.
    • Done.
  • "Four—later increased to six—" -> "Four, later increased to six,..."
    • Done
  • "depression down to -5 degrees and elevation to 30 degrees." -> should be " had a depression of... and elevation of..." (as far as I know). Wikilink for clarity.
  • Wikilink superfiring or equivalent. If not linked previously, rate of fire, battery, centreline, superstructure, barbettes and anything else remotely unfamiliar or nautical should be wikilinked. TomStar ran into problems with this on Montana Class during FAC due to authors unfamiliar with the subject.
    • Those words that have articles or sections in articles have been linked.
  • "This design proved unsatisfactory, and so in 1937, the ship was withdrawn for a massive reconstruction in 1935–38." -> "This design proved unsatisfactory (WHY?), and in 1937 the ship was withdrawn for massive reconstruction from 1935 to 1938." (How was it withdrawn while being 'massively reconstructed'?) 'Massive' (originally meaning having great weight) is not ideal wording for an encyclopedia.
    • I'll see what I can find as to why exactly the 3-deck configuration was unsatisfactory (I'd assume it was too complicated for fast operations). I fixed the year and removed "massive".
  • I feel that 'Career as an aircraft carrier' is perhaps too long. Consider cutting it down to major actions and fate. Akagi has its own article.
    • Maybe discuss that with Piotrus :) He had stated that the Akagi service history bit was too short (see this version, where it was incorporated into the Construction, cancellation, and conversion section).
  • There is an interesting factoid about the name in the Akagi article that could be included here.

Good work, I hope you guys run out of cancelled ship designs one day so the landlubbers can benefit from your (collective) skill and experience. Dhatfield (talk) 17:01, 6 April 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.
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.

Moltke class battlecruiser

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


I recently rewrote this article, and it just passed GA. So I'm nominating it for A-class. I appreciate any and all comments towards improving the article. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This meets all the criteria. My suggestions for further development are:
    • The Ottoman navy should be linked in the introduction (and should 'navy' have a capital n?)
    • The first para in the development section should make it clearer that only a single ship was initially planned
    • The statement that Goben "defended against a similar incursion of British pre-dreadnoughts" doesn't seem correct, as she played no role in stopping their attempt to force the Dardanelles, and this was defeated by Turkish forts and minefields. Several French pre-dreadnoughts were also involved.
    • My copy of the 1974 edition of Bennett's Naval Battle of the First World War (as reprinted by Penguin in 2001) states that the very modern HMS Queen Elizabeth was sent to the eastern Med in early 1915 to take on Goben and took part in the attempt to force the Dardanelles (pp. 28-30). Given that he died in 1983 I don't see how he could have revised his views and greatly changed the order in which material was presented in his book - is citation 17 correct? Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. I fixed the first two points you mentioned. As to the third, I know I read somewhere (but can't recall at the moment) a line about how the British and French dreadnoughts not being able to force the Dardanelles because of the "powerful German battlecruiser lurking just on the other side" (or something equally colorful :) ). I'll have to see if I can find where that was. I did include the French (I thought I had already done that, but apparently only in the lead section). As to your last point, I was citing the line at the bottom of the page which reads "...by sinking the pre-dreadnoughts Majestic and Triumph in the next month (p. 45), Lieutenant-Commander Hersing impelled Fisher to withdraw the recently completed 15-inch gunned dreadnought Queen Elizabeth, first of her class, from de Robeck's bombarding force, lest she suffered a similar fate." He of course does mention QE much earlier in the book, but he did not mention her withdrawal (or at least I must've missed it when I was writing this article). Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two dabs have been fixed. Thanks for checking those. Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (little stuff) Support now that all issues are addressed.

"Bottled up"? There's nothing wrong with it, but if there's a better way to put it ...?
  • "The ships had a standard crew of 43 officers and 1010 men, and while Moltke served as the I Scouting Squadron flagship, she was manned by an additional 13 officers and 62 men."
Sounds a bit awkward all in a single sentence.
  • "The guns fired both Armor-piercing and semi-AP shells, which both weighed 302 kg (670 lb)."
does "Armor-piercing" need to be capitalized? -not sure-

The rest is pretty good ^_^. Made some small tweaks. Icy // ♫ 23:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I reworded that sentence in the intro; is it better now? I split the crew sentence and made "armor-piercing" lowercase. Thanks for your copyedits too :) Parsecboy (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's quite all right now for ACR. Changing vote to Support. Icy // ♫ 20:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Exellent work. Cla68 (talk) 08:17, 30 March 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.
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

edit
Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Harlsbottom

edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
No worries on taking a while. I already removed the line. Thanks for your help! Parsecboy (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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?
      • 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]"
    • "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.
    • 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
    • Cheers Parsec! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

SM UB-43

edit
Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)


This article has passed a GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is a great article which easily meets the criteria. My comments for any further development are:
    • The 'Design and construction' section is a bit choppy - the number of facts and citations makes it hard to read.
    • The distinction between the flotilla being based at Pola and operating from Cattaro is a bit unclear as currently written. It might be better to say that "Although the flotilla's headquarters and support facilities were located at Pola ... boats of the flotilla operated out of the Austro-Hungarian base at Cattaro as it was farther south and closer to the Mediterranean."
    • The article is a bit wordy, and the prose could be streamlined. This isn't a big deal though. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 March 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.
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.

Japanese battleship Haruna

edit
Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)

The fourth (and last) of the Kongo class battleships. Passed its GA last month, was featured as a DYK on the Main Page on 22 February. I believe it meets the A-Class criteria, and is likely the single most difficult article I have ever written, simply due to the lack of sources with specific information. As another thought, I wish to personally thank the creaters of combinedfleet.com, without whom the creation of this article would not have been possible with the resources I have. Cam (Chat) 05:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support now Comments - (this version)
    • I've been planning to add a little meat on the history of the Kongo-class for this article using Conway's, but never got around to it before I left college for break (and guess where Ed left that book?). If I haven't written something by, say, Wednesday, please poke me; I may use Google Books though. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may be able to use this page in beefing up the armament. It's reliable; I think a copy of the WP:RS/N discussion can be found somewhere in Tom's massive sandbox.
Ah, I'm actually in the process of writing a specific gun page for that piece of naval armament (similar to what you did for 14"/45 caliber gun). I'll link it once the article is written. Cam (Chat) 04:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh :) Well, feel free to use that site with that article then instead :P —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 08:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say "In keeping with Japanese doctrine". What doctrine? (I know that it had something to do with having the most heavily armed BB's, but do other people? :) )
I added in a bit on that. Cam (Chat) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you know when Haruna came out of reserve after 1917 and 1920? And do we know just why she went into reserve those two times? (no, I don't expect you to know this last. Food for thought...)
    • "Although she had been equipped to carry floatplanes as early as 1927, Haruna's aircraft complement was upgraded, with the catapults and rails necessary to support three Nakajima E8N or Kawanishi E7K reconnaissance and spotter seaplanes."
      • Why "as early as"?
Fixed. Cam (Chat) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • [Citation needed]"On 18 September 1943, Haruna left Truk as part of a counterattack force in response to American raids on the Brown Islands, yet returned to the Japanese naval base when no contact was made."
The previous sentence's cite cover both of them, so I've switched its positioning. Cam (Chat) 17:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cam (Chat) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Unharmed, Haruna arrived at Sasebo the following day. At the closing of 1944, Haruna was in Kure for repairs, having survived a year in which four other Japanese battleships had been lost."
      • "Unharmed" and "repairs" in consecutive sentences. Why was she damaged enough for repairs?
She wasn't damaged during the sub attack, but had run aground several days earlier. I've already clarified it in the section. Cam (Chat) 04:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Would it be possible to add something about how she ran aground too? :/ —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 08:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was something in there already. Cam (Chat) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not totally satisfied. Were the repairs in Sasebo just temporary repairs to keep her sailing and escorting, and the later repairs at Kure the real deal? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This is a good article, but I think that it needs more work to reach A-class:
    • A clearer photo of the ship would be a better choice for the infobox photo
Alright. I've done some switching around to fix it. Cam (Chat) 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The statement that " Haruna fought in every major combat action of the Pacific Theatre of World War II, covering landings in Singapore and the Dutch East Indies in 1942, before fighting American forces at the Battle of Midway and during the Guadalcanal Campaign" is flawed: The battleship obviously only could have seen action in the major naval actions in the theatre yet didn't take part on the Battle of the Coral Sea, Battle of the Eastern Solomons, most of the other fighting in the Solomon Islands, etc. The Japanese also didn't land at Singapore until February 1942 by which time she was out of the area.
Fixed. Cam (Chat) 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The statement that "Throughout 1943, Haruna continuously transferred between Truk Lagoon, Kure Naval Base, Sasebo Naval Base, and Lingga in response to American airstrikes on Japanese island bases" seems unjustified as the relevant para states that she only responded to two American air strikes, and the first was in September, and implies that she spent most of her time in port
Fixed. Cam (Chat) 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was the ship really "permanently transferred to Kure Naval Base" in early 1945? The relevant section of the article doesn't state this assignment was to be 'permanent' (which implies that the Japanese never intended to send her sea again)
My mistake, Kure was permanently designated as her home-port. I'll reword that. Cam (Chat) 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should all the captains be red-linked?
Oddly enough, very few of Japan's naval captains have any articles about them at all, other than those who rose to prominent command positions afterwards (Jisaburo Ozawa)
    • There are a few single paragraph sections which could be combined with neighboring sections
I've fixed a few. Cam (Chat) 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What did it mean for the ship to be the "Emperor's special ship"?
Added in bit in refs. She served as his transport throughout the Japanese Empire
    • Which modifications were "declared complete" on 1 October 1931?
First Reconstruction. Clarified. Cam (Chat) 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carrier based aircraft played no role in the destruction of Force Z, and it doesn't seem correct to state that Haruna "withdrew from Southeast Asia" after this given that the source states that she sailed back to Indochina (which is part of Southeast Asia) and sortied to cover the invasion of Luzon in late December before leaving the area
I've changed it to "withdrew from Malaya". Is that better? Cam (Chat) 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that Britain had an "Indian Ocean Fleet"; this naval force was the Eastern Fleet
Ah. Changed to correct term (my bad, my knowledge of British fleets is sub-par). Cam (Chat) 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems an overstatement to say that the Japanese bombardment nearly destroyed Henderson Field given that, despite extensive damage and loss of aircraft and supplies, it was back in operation within a few hours
In this regard, my sources disagree. Some sources (particularly those pertaining to the Guadalcanal Campaign as a whole) maintain that the damage to the field was quite severe. Other sources state the damage was minimal. My guess is that the damage was severe, yet the skillful damage control capabilities of American engineers enabled it to be up and running shortly after. I'm going to reconsult some other sources and leave it as-is for the moment. Cam (Chat) 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that as well, the previous sentence's citation covers both of them. Cam (Chat) 17:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've made some minor stylistic and copy-editing style changes, feel free to revert me if you wish, I just think they read better. Otherwise it looks excellent. Good luck at FAC! – Joe Nutter 23:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Concerns now addressed, though I think that 'inflicting heavy damage on' would be better than 'nearly destroying' during the coverage of the discussion of the attack on Henderson Field. Cla68 might have a better set of words again though. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - the infobox gives one number for everything...but what about before the major reconstruction? What were her stats prior to that? (I can help cite this with Conway's 1906–1921 if needed.—Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tonnage and length displacements I only possess for the fast battleship era of the vessel. The armament - other than the AA guns - remained virtually the same throughout her career. I can tweak the speed section and a few others, but I have relatively little information on her pre-fast battleship era outside of the work done by Combined Fleet. Cam (Chat) 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • File:Haruna at sea.jpg and File:Haruna on trials.jpg state that the images are from the "Japanese archives". Which Japanese archives? Where did the photo actually come from? My apologies for not having done this sooner, but I have a picture book with large, clear, glossy pictures of most, if not all of the IJN's battleships and I'll try to upload a better picture(s) within the next couple of days, family demands permitting.
  • Since the dates are given in the text, it's not necessary to put the dates in the section headings. For example, "1915–1926: Battlecruiser" would simply be "Battlecruiser." If you don't agree, however, that's ok.
  • You have an external links section, but no external links are listed. Cla68 (talk) 03:27, 12 March 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.
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.

SM UB-45

edit
Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it meets the requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support - Here are my initial comments

  • 'SM UB-45 was a Type UB II submarine or U-boat for the German Imperial Navy (German: Kaiserliche Marine) during World War I' - Shouldn't it be 'used by the German Imperial Navy', as 'for' doesn't make much sense? I'd also sawp the placement of submarine and U-Boat.
  • 'UB-45 was broken into railcar sized components' - Endash between railcar and sized?
  • How much did the submarine cost to build?
  • 'As a UB II boat, U-47 could also carry twice the torpedo load of her UB I counterparts, and nearly ten times as much fuel' - Wrong Sub name here, surely?
  • 'UB-45 was broken into railcar-sized components and shipped overland to the Austro-Hungarian port of Pola' - Wikilink Austro-Hungary?
  • 'In mid-July, Palis and UB-45 achieved their first success when they sank two steamers in a three-day span' - This sounds wrong - I know what you mean, but rewording it so that it's just 'the submarine [or the sub title] sank two steamers...'.
    • Yeah, that was kind of clumsy. I've reworded to In mid-July, UB-45's first success occurred when she sank two steamers in a three-day span.
  • 'First, Virginia was sunk on the 16th while carrying salt destined for Calcutta' - Does Virginia (and all other ships) have a prefix? I'd also state that it was a British ship first, not later on in the sentence.
    • I think that all of were steamships and could properly use the "SS" prefix, however, Uboat.net (the main source for ships sunk and info about them) does not use a prefix with any of them. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'After Germany's conquest of Romania (see Romania during World War I)' - the sudden wikilink in brackets looks out of place; recommending piping it through 'After Germany's conquest of Romania'.
    • Done.
  • 'the German Imperial Navy had sufficient fuel oil for submarines located in the Black Sea' - Meaning of this is unclear - did they have submarines there previously? Perhaos qualify with 'for submarines to operate in the Black Sea'.
    • Reworded
  • 'In 1932, the Bulgarian Navy conceived a plan to search for the wreck of UB-45 with the intent of raising it for restoration as a training vessel, or, at the very least, to recover the sunken U-boat's 8.8-centimeter (3.5 in) deck gun. An additional aim stated was the recovery of the remains of the men that went down in UB-45.' - Citation please
    • Everything in the paragraph comes from the same page of the same article, cited at the end of the paragraph. If you think it necessary or expedient to specifically add the same citation, I can. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'UB-45's wreck was raised in an operation that cost several times less than that of a new 8.8-centimeter gun' - poor grammar, and meaning unclear - did you mean 'several times more'? A citation would be good as well.
    • Reworded slightly, but the gun was worth several times more than what was spent to raise UB-45. I'm completely open to suggestions for better wording. The reason for the strange comparative was that the article gave no indication of the absolute amount spent on UB-45's salvage operation or the value of the gun. (See response above regarding source.) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'A restoration of the submarine to operating condition, as either a training vessel or a military, would cost 21 million leva, significantly less than the 56 to 65 million leva that a comparable new submarine would cost' - I'd like a citation here as well, and possibly some sort of translation into how many dollars/pounds this was.
  • In the 'Ships Sunk' table, I'd like to see the vessels prefix's if they exist.
  • I assume that u-boat.net is a reliable source?

Those are my comments for the article at the moment. I may add more at a later time. Skinny87 (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've interspersed responses to your specific suggestion above. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved to Support; U-boat.net looks fine, if you can't find sources for specific sections then that's hardly your fault, and the grammar seems fine now. Could I be cheeky and ask that you reciprocate by reviewing Operation Freshman that's above? :) Skinny87 (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A1. Referencing and source quality look good.
  • A2. Coverage seems fine.
  • A3. The article is structured and organised appropriately.
  • A4. Prose and MOS compliance are good (I made a few tweaks; please amend as necessary!)
  • A5. Supporting material is relevant and suitably licensed.
Verdict: Support, and congratulations on another excellent article in your series ;) EyeSerenetalk 20:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm not sure if you can get away with having two fair-use images in the article, but I don't think it's a big problem. Note 7 appears to duplicate information already in the sentence succeeded by footnote #16. Otherwise, excellent work as usual. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the review. I would agree about with you on fair use if both were of substantially the same thing, like different views of the submarine, but I think the rarity of a funeral procession 20 years after a boat went down helps justify the second image. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:01, 5 March 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.
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.

Design 1047 battlecruiser

edit
Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs)


Hi everyone. This is one of the more interesting articles I have contributed to: a class of battlecruisers intended for the Royal Netherlands Navy that would have been designed by the Germans if not for the beginning of the Second World War. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is a great article on a fascinating design, and I think that it easily meets the criteria. My suggestions for further development are:
    • The lead is a bit short, and could probably be expanded
    • "their colonies [emphasis added] in the East Indies" seems to be an over-statement given that the NEI was the only Dutch colony
      • Fixed. That was me being dumb.
    • The first sentence in the 'background' section is a bit awkward - do you need to mention the Japanese occupation of Manchuria?
      • Cut down a bit. I think that I have to mention the invasion, but not the pacification.
    • When was the design described in the article completed?
      • I have no idea; none of the sources give a date.
    • Can you provide more detail on why work on the ships was suspended and when exactly this occurred? - given that the ships' were authorised in February 1940, it can't have been long before the Netherlands was invaded (there seems to be a conflict between the date of authorisation at the statement that work was largely ceased at the start of the war)
      • Work on the ships was suspended by the Netherlands when they were invaded, but work on the turrets by German firms was continued for a little bit thereafter is my guess. No one is really concrete on this.
    • Were/have there been there any criticisms of the concept behind these ships? In retrospect, they seem old fashioned given the effectiveness of aircraft against battleships in the war (the loss of HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse off Malaya suggest that these ships would have been highly vulnerable when the Japanese moved south). Given that the Alaska class are generally considered to have been white elephants, the same could apply to these similar battlecruisers. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Alaska's were "white elephants" because the Japanese cruisers they were supposed to hunt and kill were almost extinct by the time they were commissioned; similar to these ships, they would have been put to better use if Japan had actually had cruisers left or if Germany had active surface commerce raiders. Also, keep in mind that the most powerful ships Japan sent to the East Indies were the Kongo's, although I suppose that the IJN might have sent carriers if the battlecruisers were there.
      • In a related point, I added a little info on the AA armament for the ships. What is interesting about it is that A) they would have used the more effective dual-purpose system used on US and UK ships, and B) the ship would have had a sophisticated fire-control system (probably an upgraded version of De Ruyter's, but that is a guess). Assuming that guess is right, they would have probably been the most effective AA ships in the world—I mean, who else even had a decent FCS at that time? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for those responses. It's worth noting that the Japanese did send four of their six large carriers to support the invasion of the NEI in 1942 (this was the force which bombed Darwin to protect the invasion of Java and later caused havoc in the Indian Ocean). Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Germans had a special philosophy for warships at that time: "Outgun anything faster, outrun anything with more firepower." I know it from the German Museum in Munich, but it's likely mentioned in any sources about the German navy of Third Reich and the Weimar Republic.Wandalstouring (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed here, I don't think. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions/comments:
  • I expanded the intro, but I was wondering, when did German participation in the design of the ships end, with the beginning of World War II in 1939, or when Germany overran the Netherlands in 1940? Was the German portion of the designs completed before September 1939?
  • When they overran the Netherlands. I tried to clarify this in the text.
  • How much work on the ships was accomplished before the program was canceled? Anything past the design stage?
  • Not entirely sure. I'd assume so, considering that orders went out, but...
  • You might consider summarizing what actually happened in the Dutch East Indies (DEI) when the Japanese attacked. The Dutch were correct that the Japanese did not employ their battleships in that campaign, but wrong in their assumption that the Japanese wouldn't use their fleet carriers. In fact, since the DEI was the primary strategic objective for the Japanese in the Pacific, Japan employed a strong force of carrier and land-based aircraft forces which presumably would have made the 1047s very vulnerable to air attack unless the Dutch and their Allies had compensated by deploying additional land-based fighter aircraft to the DEI.
  • I added a bit; would appreciate it if you would check it out. :) And no, I don't like the 7 cites for one sentence, but I did use all seven in crafting the sentence. I can't believe the lack of coverage on the fall of the NEI!

Cla68 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - studies and work are taking a lot more of my time than I thought they would, but I'll be able to address concerns tomorrow after all of my exams are done. Sorry, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just replaced the multiple refs to Combinedfleet.com with a single ref to the US semi-official history. As far as I'm aware, the Australian, British and US official histories are still the only comprehensive English-language accounts of the loss of the NEI. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of books that cover the fall of the NEI if your library has them:
  • :O My library has a milhist book that I am looking for! :) No luck on Dull, but they do have a few books by Willmott that discuss the Far East. Thanks Cla!
  • And thanks to you too, Nick! That should help greatly as well! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 08:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and the Bloody Shambles three-volume set by Brian Cull I believe also covers the NEI campaign, although I think it concentrates more heavily on Malaya and Singapore. Cla68 (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Argh...looks like I'm going to have to make do - the library is closed on snow days, and we are leaving for spring break today. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:36, 27 February 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.
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.

SM U-66

edit
Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)


This article is about the lead boat of the German Type U 66 submaines of World War I. The article has passed a GA review and I believe that it fulfills the A-Class requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:30, 16 February 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.
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.

SM U-68

edit
Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)


This is a short (but hopefully sweet) article about a German submarine that was sunk six days into its first patrol. It has passed a GA review and I believe that it meets the A-Class requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments No problems reported with dab or external links. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - (this version)
    • "The report found that Güntzel had done just about everything wrong."
      • To me, this sentence sounds ... not encyclopedic. (Do you get what I am trying to say? I can't think of the right word...)
    • 38 men were killed when the sub went down - but the "complement" in the infobox says 36. Question mark?
    • References and sources look good. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the review. Yes, in retrospect, that sentence sounded very colloquial, so I have rewritten to sound more encyclopedic. As far as the 36/38 question, I'm not sure why the discrepancy. The 36 comes from Conway's and is the figure for all of the Type U 66 boats, while the 38 comes from the account of U-68's sinking. I've noted the inconsistency in the infobox. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I assume there's no image you could use under a fair use license? I shortened the intro [2] because the article is so short. If you don't agree with the new intro, please feel free to revert, it won't bother me. Anyway, good job, as usual, with the article. Cla68 (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never seen a picture (or even a sketch) of any of the U-66-class subs anywhere, fair use or free. Maybe one (if any?) from the German Fed. Archives will be loaded to Commons soon? I can hope, at least… The intro looks fine. My spouse tells me that I'm very often too wordy, so finding out the intro is too long is hardly surprising ;) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the serial production of uboat-articles. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:11, 24 February 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.
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.

U-20 class submarine

edit
Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)


This article has passed a GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class. Bellhalla (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • 'Even though the Havmanden-class design was largely obsolete by the beginning of the war, four boats were ordered by the Austro-Hungarian Navy in 1915, in part because construction could begin immediately' - I don't like 'in part', 'partky' and so forth. Why else was the boat ordered - I think there's room in the lead to mention another reason.
    • 'Austria-Hungary had a largely obsolete U-boat fleet at time of the outbreak of World War I' - Is it possible to expand on why it was obsolete, what it's status was at the time? It would be informative background.
    • 'This allocation of contracts, while politically expedient, exacerbated technical problems that resulted in numerous modifications and delays' - And what were these modifications and delays? Can we expand on this? Skinny87 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Replies interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I couldn't find any major issues. Since you haven't been able to find images of any of the actual submarines in the class, you might need to consider putting the picture of the conning tower from the museum in the infobox. That picture is the closest image you have to the actual submarines, although I understand the argument that it would be better to have a complete picture from an equivalent class of submarines. Also, in my opinion it's better to combine citations at the end of a sentence instead of having them in the middle of sentences, because I think it improves readability. The FA reviewers don't seem to object to in-sentence citations, however, so I guess it's not obligatory. Anyway, good work, as usual, with the article. Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - meets the A-class criterion. A comment:
    • "U-23 then came under attack from the Italian destroyer Airone; after first trying to ram the U-boat, the destroyer deployed an explosive paravane. When the paravane came into contact with the submerged U-23, it blew debris into the air, sinking the submarine with all hands.[9]"
      • I tried to c/e the first sentence but didn't do a good job. :) The second sentence here also is weird: "it blew debris into the air"? Why not just say that the sub was sunk? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Drama, perhaps? I guess because so many U-boat sinkings tend to be described as "…dropped three depth charges and some oil came to the surface…". It's not a terribly relevant bit of information, but it is interesting in a non-trivia sort of way. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
  • "U-20 was accidentally rammed by the Austro-Hungarian Navy light cruiser Admiral Spaun, which required seven months of repairs." Which ship required the repairs? Normally subs are damaged more than bigger ships, but this makes it seem like it was the cruiser.
  • "The still-incomplete boat sank in the harbor at Fiume in June 1917," Can you explain how? I'm assuming sources don't say?
Two minor little issues. – Joe Nutter 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and the helpful comments. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:57, 15 February 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.
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.

U-5 class submarine (Austria-Hungary)

edit
Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's time for the next Austro-Hungarian submarine class, this time the U-5 class. This article has passed a GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I'll do more later
    • 'Grant (p. 162), Gibson and Prendergast (p. 73), and Halpern (p. 150) and report U-12's loss in August 1915, while Sieche (p. 23) and Gardiner (p. 343) report the loss in August 1916.' - you've got an extra 'and' there that needs adding to or taking away. Skinny87 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'The design of the boats was based upon John Philip Holland's submarine design and the boats featured a single, teardrop hull, which resembled the design of modern nuclear submarines' - Repetition of 'the boats'
    • 'All three boats had successes during World War I; between them sinking five ships with a combined gross register tonnage (GRT) of 22,391' - With the semicolon, changing 'sinking' to 'tbhey sank' sounds better
    • 'In 1904, after allowing the navies of other countries to pioneer submarine developments, the Austro-Hungarian Navy ordered the Austrian Naval Technical Committee (MTK) to produce a submarine design' - Allow seems a tad odd, as if they were the best and were gracious enough to let it happen, which I'm guessing isn't really the case.
      • Well, that's certainly not the sense aimed for. The sense I get from the source is they didn't want to spend money on development of purely experimental boats and opted not to get involved in that, choosing to wait until the technology was at least a little more mature. Changing the verb to let still implies a permissive aspect that's not supported. What can you suggest? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'The ships were powered by gasoline engines while surfaced, but suffered from inadequate ventilation, which resulted in frequent intoxication of the crew' - How were they powered underwater, then?
    • 'Reportedly built to run on electric motors both on the surface and submerged, SS-3 was rebuilt with gasoline motors when the surface running on the electric motors proved disappointing' - The latter parts need rewording, it doesn't flow very well, and I'm not sure what it's saying. Skinny87 (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review. (Specific replies interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Sources query I believe that the Icelandic editor of the website you use is not an RS. He is an insurance broker trained with business degrees. Some of his staff are engineers. None IMHO are qualified to make WP:SPS in a reliable manner. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I initially had the same concerns about citing Uboat.net until I did a search for other works that have cited the website. I came up with the following through Google Books, listing only those where I could see an actual citation:
      • Atkinson, Rick (2002). An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942–1943 (1st ed.). New York: Henry Holt & Co. ISBN 9780805062885. OCLC 49383747.
      • Castelaz, Isaac (2008). Paths to Power: The Legacy of an Empire and the Fight to Find America. Abysmal Pub. ISBN 096738253X. OCLC 244067357.
      • Conley, Tom (2007). Cartographic Cinema. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816643578. OCLC 73501932.
      • Lecane, Philip (2005). Torpedoed!: the R.M.S. Leinster Disaster. Penzance, Cornwall: Periscope. ISBN 1904381308. OCLC 74335239.
      • Treadwell, Theodore R (2000). Splinter Fleet: The Wooden Subchasers of World War II. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1557508178. OCLC 43706924.
      • Whitlock, Flint; Ron Smith (2007). The Depths of Courage: American Submariners at War with Japan, 1941-1945 (1st ed.). New York: Berkley Caliber. ISBN 9780425217436. OCLC 77503911.
      • Wise, James E.; Scott Baron (2004). Soldiers Lost at Sea: A Chronicle of Troopship Disasters. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1591149665. OCLC 52182511.
      • Zuehlke, Mark (2008). Operation Husky: the Canadian Invasion of Sicily, July 10–August 7, 1943. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre. ISBN 9781553653240. OCLC 245556470.
    • There are probably more that are not visible via "Limited Preview" at Google Books. I'm not familiar enough with Abysmal Publications to know if it's a vanity publisher or not, but the others are appear to be major publishers. Some of the books have multiple editions; one has 23 different editions. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's fine then. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - meets all of our A-class criteria. A few comments:
    • In the lead, you say that "damaged a French dreadnought of 22,189 tons displacement." Is this being cryptic on purpose? I mean, I like the link to dreadnought because it's (almost) FA, but...how about "the 22,189 ton French dreadnought Jean Bart"
    • "After the war's end, U-5, the only surviving example of the class, was ceded to Italy as a war reparation and was broken up in 1920."
    • "The third boat, built on speculation, was originally named SS-3 and built entirely at Whitehead's in Fiume with improvements in the electrical and mechanical systems."
    • Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:15, 11 February 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.
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.

closed as promoted by Woody (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese battleship Yamato

edit

The second in the series concerning the Yamato battleships - detailing the lead ship of the class (and the only one to fire her massive broadside at enemy surface targets). Passed a thorough GA-Review on 19 January, and I believe it's ready for A-class. Cam (Chat) 21:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments This is a very solid article, but I'm not sure that it adequetly covers its topic, though the content is very good.
  • The article seems a bit short given the vast amounts which have been written about the ship and her (unremarkable) career. Some areas were coverage could be expanded are:
  • Results of her sea trials and initial training period - were any changes needed?
Not that I'm aware of. Cam (Chat) 21:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The astonishing decision to use Yamato as a troop transport in 1944: why was this considered a good idea given her fuel consumption and value as a warship?
  • The abortive plan to use Yamato and Musashi to attack the Allied force off Biak which was canceled when the invasion force heading for the Marianas was detected (see: [3])
  • The section on the Battle of Leyte Gulf could be greatly expanded given that this was the only time Yamato was used for something like her intended purpose
  • Unfortunately, not a lot happened that is recorded. We do know that she scored hits on three vessels, and it is also known that a spread of torpedoes—aimed at Haruna, approached Yamato very early in the battle. She had to steam away from the battle to avoid getting hit, and was unable to rejoin. I've reworded the section to reflect that. Cam (Chat) 23:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yamato class battleship is linked three times in the first three paragraphs, including as a main link - I think that only the first link is needed
  • Did Yamato really 'accidently' open fire on Japanese planes in the Battle of the Philippine Sea? - this suggests that someone leaned on the fire button or an automated system went haywire. 'Mistakenly' might be a better word.
  • Where was 2nd Fleet when it was attacked on 21 November 1944?
  • The section on 1944 states that the ship received her 'final AA suite' early that year, but later states that late in the year she received further 'antiaircraft upgrades' - as written, this is a bit confusing
  • If you're still looking, Nova did a special on it a couple years ago, chronicling the search for and discovery of the ship. Not sure if that'd meet WP:RS, but I'd certainly consider it reliable. The companion website is here, the episode is "Sinking the Supership." – Joe Nutter 20:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • Quite a few peacock words. Some examples: Following the disastrous defeat of … , … due in part to a stalwart defense … by elite Japanese fighter pilots…, …led by the famed Minoru Genda…, … with her formidable 18.1-inch heavy-guns…. Check for others and either change to more neutral wording or more closely attribute them, please.
      Fixed the ones I could find. Cam (Chat) 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I appreciate the differentiation between adjacent numbers, as in six 6.1-inch (15 cm) guns, I'm not so sure that's the best thing for the upgraded AA suite: … and one hundred and sixty-two 1-inch (2.5 cm) antiaircraft guns, …. It would read a little better, at least, if the number were written as one hundred sixty-two (with no and in the middle).
      Fixed. Cam (Chat) 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we need the future ranks of Yamato's commanding officers? Are they relevant in this article?
    • Are all of Yamato's captains notable enough to justify the all of the redlinks scattered throughout?
      Oddly enough, yes. I googled it, searched the IJN Admiral page on the pedia, and there's no mention of any except Ito. Cam (Chat) 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      If they are, that's fine.
    • For the sentence beginning The explosion—over four miles high …, does the source say the explosion was four miles high? Surely they mean the smoke plume… ? (This should have a unit conversion, too.)
      Fixed (it was the smoke). Cam (Chat) 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The items listed in the "References" section should be in alphabetical order. Also, because some are formatted with {{cite book}} and others are manually formatted, there are discrepancies in the format, such as a full stop between location and publisher in the manual entries, and a colon in those formatted with the template. Ten of the fourteen are missing a publishing location, and at least one needs an ISBN, Steinberg's Island Hopping. By the way, is that, perhaps, supposed to be Island Fighting (ISBN 0809424886)?
      Indeed it is. Thank-you for catching that. Cam (Chat) 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does Template:IJN add to this article since Yamato is not a link within it?
      Fixed that as well. Cam (Chat) 06:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm close to supporting, but am especially concerned about the peacock words. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to support with the proviso that the additional reference items be addressed. I share Nick's views on expansion (particularly in the "Design and construction" section) before attempting an FAC. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • I echo the comments above that the reference issues should be addressed, and the expansions should be made prior to FAC. Got a few small things below:
    • The Battle of Sibuyan Sea photo is squeezing the next level header, which I believe is a no-no at FAC level.
Fixed. Cam (Chat) 04:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Skate fired a spread of four torpedoes at Yamato, with two striking on the starboard side near Turret #3.[16] Severe failure of the armoured belt flooded the upper magazine of the rear turret, and Yamato was forced to retire to Truk for emergency repairs' - where there any crew casualties?
Not that I am aware of. Cam (Chat) 04:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Damage to the battleship, however, was light,[24] due in part to a defense of the base by experienced Japanese fighter pilots flying Kawanishi N1K "George" fighters; these fighters were led by Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor.' - What else helped prevent major damage to the ship?
Added. Cam (Chat) 04:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnotes 10 and 12 seem like they would act better as seperate notes, the [nb1]], nb2 kind.
    • And Footnote 4 - Maybe it's just me, but footnoting two seperate books together as one footnote seems a little odd, and might come up at FAC. I know it might take a bit of work, but seperating them might be a better idea, even if you leave them together, ie [41][42] etc.
I've seen it used in other FACs in which it didn't come up. Cam (Chat) 04:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at the authors stuff. Cam (Chat) 04:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article, all comments appear to have been dealt with, and I could not find any other problems. While it seems rather short, I suppose it was rarely actually used for combat, and thus there isn't much to say about her. – Joe Nutter 22:22, 3 February 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.
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.

Closed as promoted by Woody (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Moltke (1910)

edit

This article just passed GA, and was peer-reviewed last month; I think it's at or close to A-class, hence this request. Prose-wise, the article is probably as complete as it can be, it just needs finessing and a thorough copy-edit would be wise. I'd like to get some more pointers/suggestions/comments as to how the article can be improved, as I steer (no pun intended) the article towards FA-class. Thanks for any and all help. Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Land Looks very good. Not far off supporting, but have all my comments now, as I would rather say them now than at FAC:

  • Characteristics in infobox should be referenced, please
  • The speed mentioned in the design section does not agree with that in the infobox. I'm sure this is down to the powerplant overperforming, but if so this needs to be made clear. Also: is that stated power figure the design power or the trial power - ideally the infobox would state the power at which the speed was achieved.
  • Footnote 5 needs a reference of some description
  • It would be better if a source other than Massie could be found for some of the refs, but (given what is being referenced) this isn't something I'd oppose on
  • In the battles section there are plenty of gun calibres, speeds and ranges which are unconverted. Where a measurement recurs frequently in the same section or paragraph I would only convert the first instance.
  • I Cruiser Squadron, etc - should it be "I Cruiser Squadron" or "the I Cruiser Squadron"?
  • Later Operations para 3: "surface operations transitioned..." is not great prose

Hope these comments are helpful! Regards, The Land (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very specific comments. I've fixed up the infobox, including references for each field and clarifying the speed/hp differences between design and maximum figures. I added a reference for footnote 5, and fixed all (I think) of the figures needing conversion; if I've missed any, can you point them out? As for Massie, I could have used either Tarrant's or Staff's books to cite those as well, but I didn't want to rely too much on one or two book (I already use them quite a lot). I must be missing the instances of "I Cruiser Squadon"/etc. (I used ctrl+f to search the text). Can you specify the paragraphs please? Last, I rewrote the sentence you commented on; is the new wording any better? Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i meant "I Scounting Group" etc, not 'crusier squadron'. The Land (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm still a little confused though; it looks to me that all of the "I Scouting Group"s have a "the" before them. Are you asking if the "the" is correct? Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The Land (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...when I was writing it, I was saying "First" in my head, so "the" seems correct. I could be wrong though. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Queen Elizabeth II" not "Queen Elizabeth the II"... The Land (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but it seems wrong to me to say something like "Beatty's battlecruisers engaged I (read First) Scouting Group". "The" seems more grammatically correct. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another thing to consider: would one say "The 101st Airborne held the crucial road juncture at Bastogne..." or "101st Airborne held..."? I'm not trying to argue or anything, I'm just trying to figure out what is correct. Parsecboy (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I can't say I can see any consistent paterrn of usage that means it should be "I Scouting Group", so let's not worry about it :) The Land (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. I'm thinking it's probably a matter of taste in most instances, so unless someone else can tell us one way or the other, it's probably fine as is. Parsecboy (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My $0.02: In my admittedly limited knowledge of German, the Roman numeral in front of a unit (often followed by a period) is usually read as an ordinal number, i.e. "I Scouting Group" would be read as "First Scouting Group", making an the definite article the acceptable. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed up the inconsistent references; do you have any suggestions as to make the second note more clear? Basically, I was just trying to explain how the Von der Tann was "unique". Yeah, I generally prefer dead-tree sources when I can get ahold of them. Parsecboy (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...not really. The Land would be a better person to ask. Sorry... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because when Von der Tann was started there were only funds for one cruiser that year, and when the next two cruiser slots came around in the building schedule laid down by the German Navy Laws, the Navy thought they could get away with spending the money on an increased armament. The Land (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's essentially what Staff's book says: they had enough money to either upgrade to eight 30.5cm guns or add a 5th pair of 28cm guns. Tirpitz and the Construction Department wanted more guns instead of bigger ones, so that was the decision. Parsecboy (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go right ahead, I'll add sources as you identify sections that need them. Parsecboy (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've added citations for the fact tags you placed in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think that most of the issues have been dealt with, and those that have not need some further clarification (i.e., the I Cruiser Squadron bit, etc.). Parsecboy (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Support
    • In the section "Battle of Heligoland Bight" what are the "beleaguered German cruisers"? I see them listed farther down, but some context for Moltke and Von der Tann sortie would be helpful. Also, this section and "Battle of the Gulf of Riga", unlike the rest, don't have a {{main}} link in them. Is there a reason for that? I do see that both articles are linked, but it seems like for consistency all (that have articles, at least) should be the same.
    • In the section "Bombardment of Yarmouth" the sentence beginning On 2 November 1914, Moltke, Seydlitz, the flagship of Rear Admiral Hipper, Von der Tann, and Blücher, … is (slightly) ambiguous. Is it the four named ships and Hipper's flagship? I'm guessing not, but to avoid any potential ambiguity, it could be rephrased as On 2 November 1914, Moltke, Hipper's flagship Seydlitz, Von der Tann, and Blücher, …
  • That's all for now; I'll finish reviewing tomorrow. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments; I expanded the Heligoland section to give a little more context to that which Moltke and Von der Tann were responding. I also fixed the other things you mentioned. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After taking a look at the rest of the article I only found a few things, most of which were minor and I fixed already. The one issue that ought to be taken care of is inconsistent use of either knots, kts, or kn in the article. (All three are used in the Jutland section.) I'd recommend the completely unambiguous knots. Other than that I have no objections and have changed to support. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with the article. I fixed the knots/kts/kn issue per your suggestion to use just "knots". Parsecboy (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments
I reviewed this for GA, and can't see much wrong with it. Here are some general comments:
'Moltke was damaged several times during the war: the ship was hit by heavy-caliber gunfire at Jutland, and torpedoed twice by British submarines while on fleet advances.' - What's a fleet advance? Can it be clarified?
The third para in the first section is quite short and squeezed quite badly by the infobox; can it be comgined with the second one?
'Aurora challenged Kolberg with a search light, at which point Kolberg attacked Aurora, and scored 2 hits. Aurora returned fire, and scored 2 hits on Kolberg in retaliation' - Shouldn't '2' be 'two'?
The Battle of Gulf Riga section is very short - is there any more information that can be added, even if it's just some background. It just seems off-the-cuff really.
It seems to be that 'While the fleet was consolidating in Wilhelmshaven, war-weary sailors began deserting en masse. As Von der Tann and Derfflinger passed through the locks that separated Wilhelmshaven's inner harbour and roadstead, some 300 men from both ships climbed over the side and disappeared ashore' - should start with 'However', given the previous sentences in the paragraph.
The Wiki Commons box seems out of place and is making a big white gap appear by the references - is there anywhere it can be placed to avoid that?
Excellent article overall, just a few small things to do. Skinny87 (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, Skinny. I fixed the "2"s, the short para in the design section, and the "however" bit. I also moved the commons link (how does that look now? It wasn't causing a problem for me before, but it's probably just a monitor difference issue.) As for "fleet advances", it's a portion of the fleet going out on some sort of mission, be it a sweep for enemy patrol craft, to conduct a raid, or what have you (for instance, there was a fleet advance in April 1916 to ensure the safe return of the auxiliary cruiser Möwe). As for the Gulf of Riga, there seems to be pretty scant coverage in the books I've got—in fact, Massie, Tarrant, and Bennet don't mention it at all. Bennet's comes closest, with an off-the-cuff remark that the British submarine E-1 damaged Moltke during the operation, but that's it. I'll have to see what Google Books can provide me. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I found an excellent account of the battle, and expanded the section. Oddly enough, the section in this article is now larger than the main article...perhaps I should expand it a bit as well. Parsecboy (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, moving to support!
  • Comment
  • When you keep mentioning Helmuth von Moltke and linking to different people, if would be better if you kept the disambiguator in the link visible to avoid confusion.
  • On a related note, both of them are overlinked. Just link them each once, maybe twice far apart, and distinguish between them with the Younger and the Elder.
  • "It was decided that another raid on the English coast was to be carried out," Who decided it?
  • In the Dogger Bank section, when you're mentioning the admirals commanding the various parts of the British force, please mention their first names. I don't think that most of them have been introduced yet, and only referring to them by their last names implies that they've been mentioned before in the article.
  • "The renewed gunfire gained Beatty's attention, who turned his battlecruisers westward." Who, in this case, refers incorrectly to the attention, it should be rephrased, perhaps as "The renewed gunfire gained Beatty's attention, so he turned his battlecruisers westward."
  • "It was not until 1:00, after having steamed far ahead of the Grand Fleet, was Moltke able to made good her escape." Awkward, rephrase please.
  • The text can be a bit awkward at times, it would benefit from a copy-edit for style.
  • Can some images be added between the Indefateguable and the Zeppalin? It gets to be kind of wall of text-ish.
  • A couple of images should be moved to the left, for balance.
Please get these fixed and it'll be ready for A-Class. – Joe Nutter 16:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments; I fixed some of the Helmuth von Moltke links as you suggested, and clarified the "decision" bit. I've added the first names for Commodores Tyrwhitt and Goodenough and Rear Admiral Moore. The grammatical problem with Beatty's attention and the issue with Moltke's escape have been fixed. Unfortunately, there just aren't any images of the ship during the war that aren't already in the article. File:Batalla de Dogger Bank.jpg is unclear in its copyright status, so it shouldn't be used. I did add a photo of Seydlitz, but I don't think there's much more that can be done on that issue, until someone can find suitably-licensed images. Parsecboy (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, we don't know who the author was, and thus when they died. Otherwise all the changes look good, images are balanced and the addition of the one of the Seydlitz helps, and the text is easier to read. Support. – Joe Nutter 22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asking... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:50, 3 February 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.
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.

closed as promoted by Woody (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USS Texas (BB-35)

edit

This article has been a GA for long enough, its due for a peer review, but after conferring with MBK004 it was decided to use this opportunity to push Texas to FA-class in advance of the upcoming centennial anniversary of World War I. The article is structurally sound, but I expect that there will be issues brought up that will need addressing. I'll do the best the can. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • References comments - I was going to leave this on the talk page, but...

Comments by The Land

  • It's very nice to see people caring about the WWI centennial. Even if Texas played a very marginal role in that War... but that's by the by. Here are some comments which represent either extreme battleship-geekery or on occasion total naivety about things I assume are common US military vocabulary. Most of them probably aren't strictly necessary for A-class but hope they are helpful.
    • How was she fuelled and what was the power of her engines? How many screw shafts? Any auxiliary turbines?
      • In the interwar section: "her coal-fired boilers were converted to oil-fired"
        • Can we have it in the infobox? ;)
    • A couple of juicy technological tidbits are in the lead, e.g. AA guns and director firing. Could these be expanded upon in the construction section please - what, why, and how?
    • Fn A1: this is true for some definition of battleship. Don't forget Huascar and Victory. ;-)
    • McDonnell and his Sopwith Camel: Again, some detail on why this happened and what people were trying to achieve by it would be useful.
    • Ditto first commercial radar. Is 'commercial' significant? What ws the role of the radar, what were its capabilities?
    • How can a Marine division be founded on board a battleship - wouldn't it take up a lot of space? Presumably a founding ceremony of some description is what's meant.
    • Reduction of secondary armament - why? Presumably there was a balancing increase in the size of the AA armament, but this isn't mentioned. Indeed, I think more could be said about wartime design modifications.
      • Your right, this needs to be expanded upon. The original 21 5" guns were placed in casemates in the hull (You can kind-of see them in the infobox picture just below the main deck plated over). They were ineffective and let seawater into the hull when the ship was in motion, so the forward and aft ones were pulled out within a year or two. Eventually, all but the six guns which were moved to the aircastle on the main deck amidships during the modernization were removed due to their positioning. The places the guns occupied were used for berthing by the Marines aboard ship. I've got some books at home and I can take care of this by the weekend.
    • Figures for ammunition consumption in Torch are mentioned but couldn't see them for other operations. Are these available? We need at least some kind of context for the Torch figure.
    • Amphibious warfare doctrine being primitive at this stage: is there a reference for this specific point?
    • Fn A4: "Luftwaffe" rather than "Nazi Luftwaffe" please! (conflating the Nazi party with other German institutions is extremely common in English sources but imv it's a form of anglocentric POV)
      • Fixed
    • "On 31 May the ship was sealed" - not sure what this means; a lot of seamen with gaffer tape? Were they expecting a gas attack? ;)
      • Sealed meaning that no one was allowed on or off the ship. That was my take on reading, anyway. Perhaps this needs to be clarified?
    • There are a few references to 'Plymouth, England' and 'Portsmouth, England' - can the 'England' be removed, there are no other dockyards with those names near Normandy.
      • Done
    • Media section - this material should probably go into the 'Museum ship' section, doesn't justify a section of its own IMV.
  • Good stuff! When are you going to do an article about a non-U.S. battleship? ;-) The Land (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.
  • In the list of all the ships with it at Omaha, there should be an and at the end of each list.
  • "When Texas ceased firing at the Pointe at 06:24, 255 14-inch (360 mm) shells had been fired in 34 minutes—a rate of fire of 7.5 shells per minute—and was the longest sustained period of firing for Texas in World War II." The final bit after the second dash needs to be rephrased, which was instead of and was, perhaps?
    • Have implemented as suggested, take a look now and see if it works or not.
Looks great and was a very interesting article to read. However, I would recommending fixing those two minor problems and the other ones mentioned above - I agree with the Media section idea, that information can be added to the history of it as a museum ship. – Joe Nutter 15:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments (full disclosure: I copy-edited this article in April 2008):
    • This sentence in the lead When the United States formally entered World War II in 1941, Texas resumed her role of escorting war convoys across the Atlantic, and she later shelled Axis-held beaches for the North African campaign and the Normandy Landings before being transferred to the Pacific Theater late in 1944 to provide naval gunfire support during the Battle of Iwo Jima and Battle of Okinawa. needs to be split.
    • There is inconsistency of U.S. vs. US. Most seem to be in the former style.
    • When you have an office and an officeholder—like President Woodrow Wilson and Texas Governor Oscar Colquitt—it helps keep the links high value to not link to both. (In each case a reader wanting more information on the office—information tangential, at best, to this article—can click through from the officeholders' article.)
      • Fixed as suggested
  • The article is comprehensive and well-documented and worthy of A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great work. Cla68 (talk) 02:39, 4 February 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.
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.

SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary)

edit

This article is about a French submarine that was captured by Austria-Hungary and had most of its success with Georg Ritter von Trapp (of The Sound of Music fame) at the helm. The sub also sank the largest cargo ship in the world. The article passed a GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks good; a couple of comments:

  • "Curie was laid down at the Arsenal de Toulon and launched on 18 July 1912, and completed by 1914, and commissioned into the French Navy." Take out the and before "completed by 1914," otherwise you have three ands in very quick succession.
  • You use both First World War and World War I. It would be preferable to make these consistent; I suggest First World War.

Other than those minor and optional comments, looks very good. It reads well to me, images are appropriately licensed and placed, seems to cover the topic completely. Well done, Woody (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both were good suggestion and both were implemented. Thanks for taking the time to review. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks good; the only problem I found was the the image of von Trapp sandwiched with the infobox, but I don't see how that could be avoided and have the image in a logical place with the text, so everything is good. – Joe Nutter 15:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support Congratulations on a fascinating, well-researched and presented article. At present I can see only one issue preventing my support:

  • Per A2: more complete information on the submarine's post-Trapp history might be good, if sources exist. The sub was in service from 1914 to 1928, but the article only really covers '14-'18 (less than a third of her career). I realise that it was an eventful third, but for completeness it would help to know what use the French made of her once they had her back.

A few additional minor suggestions for further improvement (not A-Class blockers though):

EyeSerenetalk 20:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've interspersed specific responses to your comments above. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you save your edits? I'm still seeing the version I reviewed. EyeSerenetalk 09:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not. :) (But trust me, they were the Best. Edits. Ever.) OK, let's try this again… — Bellhalla (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<grin> Actually, I responded to your earlier comments expressing my support before I thought "I know it's Bellhalla, but I really ought to double-check..." It brings to mind a story I can only half remember about a monarch heavily criticising a poem/composition and proposing many alterations, and the disappointed author being quietly advised by a courtier to go away and come back in a week without having made any changes, but to say he had; apparently the king was greatly pleased by the 'new' version.
Anyway, I've responded to your comments, and changed to 'support'. Thanks! EyeSerenetalk 13:58, 28 January 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.
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.

U-3 class submarine (Austria-Hungary)

edit
Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has passed a GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:35, 12 January 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.
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.
Article promoted by Woody (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadnought

edit

A number of people, myself included, did a great deal of work on this article about a year ago. Reviewing it now, I think it's pretty much ready for A-class. The article was forked from Battleship (a 2007-vintage FA) and has been very substantially expanded. I'm also confident there are enough people involved with the subject to fix any problems that the review might come up with. Regards, The Land (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There doesn't seem to be anything on the cultural impact of the Dreadnought - the race between Britain and Germany pre-WWI, 'We want Eight and we won't Wait' and so forth. I wouldn't mind seeing a section on that. Skinny87 (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The naval arms race is certainly covered: Dreadnought#The_Anglo-German_arms_race. Not particularly covered in cutural terms, but I'm not sure it had any lasting cultural (as opposed to political) impact. The Land (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • It could do with a bit of the copyedit. I've noticed, just in the lead, one ref before punctuation, and one stylistic error "scheme and revolutionary and steam turbine propulsion."
  • "They would need to do so, because torpedo ranges" Remove the comma.
Rewritten.
  • Every single paragraph needs to be referenced, at least at the end of it. I notice at least one in the Mixed-Caliber section that isn't referenced and several others throughout.
  • Watch repeat linking; I noticed this with several topics, including King Edward VII class.
  • WP:UNLINKDATES
  • You link to Pre-Dreadnaught earlier, in the lead, therefore the See Also section can be removed.
Sorted/
Besides these it was a very interesting article to read, please fix them and it'll be great. – Joe Nutter 18:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think repeat linking is much of a problem in an article like this one. I am reading articles about warships, I find it irritating to read that an innovation was introduced on a particular class, then need to scroll back up to the top of the section or page, and find the instance of the class name that is linked. Much better to have a direct link in that sentence. As the relevant part of the MOS says, "The purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at a point where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to a need for more information" - and frequently those points occur when we have said something interesting about a class of ship, which in this article is rarely the first time it is mentioned.
Eh, fair point.– Joe Nutter 22:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, referencing could be improved in the 'Dreadnoughts in Other countries' and 'Super-dreadnoughts' sections - will get onto that

this evening.

Thanks for your comments! The Land (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - very quickly before I leave to go to a family gathering.

  • Punctuation before refs (second para of lead, ref #24)
Fixed lead; ref 24 seems to be after the stop.
  • Need a ref for the first para of the 'All-big-gun mixed-calibre ships' section.
Am sure I can find one when I get back home - but bera in mind the first paragraph is simply a summary of the rest of the section.
  • Do you use endashes for page ranges in your refs? (just checking)
I don't know. And frankly, who cares?
MOS:ENDASH does. :) Not something I'll oppose on, but FAC will roast you on a spit over them, so I always try to ask when reviewing A-class articles.
I am quite happy to go into an FAC with serene ignorance over the type of dash used in the footnotes. ;-) The Land (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! On second thought, when I go through the refs later to go to "Author, Title, p. __", I'll change the page ranges to endashes at the same time. Not too hard, just repetitive. Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 00:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get U.S. Battleships moved to the bibliography to avoid the odd-looking "Page 51, Friedman, Norman, US Battleships, an Illustrated Design History, pub Naval Institute Press, 1985, ISBN 0-87021-715-1" (Ref #17)?
Sorted.
  • There are a lot of one and two sentence paras...not something that I will oppose this for, but still. :)
Yes, I know, it's really the way I write when I'm constructing articles. Normally, they can be solved just by removing some returns.
  • I will try to do a more detailed reference check tomorrow or when I get home. Cheers! (this was Allanon)
TVM! The Land (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Np! Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 05:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ed17/Allanon Oppose for now See below - (based on this older version, and I believe that any ref #'s in this are off by one or two...sorry...I was offline!) - so I’m writing this while I am riding down to my Aunt’s, so if some comments seem trivial and “he could have fixed these himself”, well…I really can’t (no wi-fi!). :) I’m going through it line-by-line, so don’t take offense some trivial things that I point out – I just want to point them out to you. If I’m wrong and what I point out does not need changing, that’s fine; it’s better to be safe than sorry! :) One last thing: I’m doing this on Word because I just lost an hour’s work of reviewing the article just now because of this stupid computer…. so apologies in advance for the curly quotation marks.

Lead
  • The Imperial Japanese Navy had begun work on an all-big-gun battleship in 1904, but changed the design to a more conventional one[1]; the U.S. Navy was also building all--big-gun battleships.”
    • ”Conventional”? I may know what you mean, but please explain for the laymen.
    • double hyphen
    • ”all-big-gun” is used twice. Can you reword this to remove one or the other?
Not easily in the context... still scratching my head about it. The Land (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big deal. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The arrival of the dreadnoughts sparked a new arms race, principally between Britain and Germany but reflected worldwide, as the new class of warships became a crucial symbol of national power.”
    • A new arms race? When was there one before? I think that “naval arms race” would suffice…
Yes, they were already engaged in an arms race - perhaps "renewed" is better...
How does it look now? The Land (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • …”reflected worldwide in places as far away as Argentina and Brazil” would be a nice addition – it shows just how world-wide it was.
Not sure - if we mention them we almost have to mention Japan as the only asian power... and then we have a bit of a list of countries. The Land (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Technical development continued rapidly through the dreadnought era, with rapid changes in armament, armour, and propulsion, meaning that ten years after Dreadnought's commissioning much more powerful ships were being built.”
    • Rapid increases you mean?
Improvements. The Land (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”Much more powerful” than Dreadnought you mean? Please clarify.
  • ”These more powerful vessels were known as super-dreadnoughts.”
    • Any reason for the bolding? Just double checking.
  • ”The only pitched battle between fleets of dreadnoughts was the Battle of Jutland, an indecisive clash that reflected Britain's continuing strategic dominance.”
    • Transition from the preceding sentence? This comes out of nowhere….
    • is the second part of this needed? (“Indecisive clash…dominace”) I think that the link might suffice.
  • ”Most of the dreadnoughts were scrapped or scuttled after the end of World War I, though some of the most advanced super-dreadnoughts continued in service through World War II.”
    • Please mention the Washington Naval Treaty somewhere in here.
    • This is slightly misleading…I’m not going to try and write out my eloquent reply that I lost because of my stupid computer, but at least 5 U.S. dreadnoughts and something like 5 classes of “super-dreadnoughts” dating from WWI all saw service in WWII.
  • Can’t see it right now w/o internet, but the Alaska-class battlecruiser article has a ref in the lead that describes them as the “last dreadnoughts” or something of the like. Would that help the last sentence of the lead?
Good thought, but saying the Alaskas were the last dreadnoughts opens a real can of worms which I don't want to go near. The Land (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, so striking. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Origins
  • The first para needs (a) ref(s), though the last sentence can be covered by page 52 of Friedman’s U.S. Battleships
I have added that. The general comments about what pre-dreadnoughts had is well covered in pre-dreadnought.
Well...I guess that those are very general things. :) FAC may require cites for everything, though, so be prepared to add one. :P —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note may help by “USS Michigan” explaining that even though she was the second ship of the ‘’South Carolina’’ class, she was laid down and launched before her sister.
Not sure it's necessary.
Good point; this was uneeded typing. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to double-cite, the authorization date can be covered by page 63 in U.S. Battleships.
  • However, page 419 says that Mich was laid down on 17 Dec 1906….not May as is stated in the article. Is something wrong here?
Evidently. Sondhaus does say May 1906 (though on page 202 not 199!) - however Friedman is more authoritative. The Land (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
K, slashed. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Long-range gunnery
  • Comma needed: “For instance(COMMA) at Santiago, …”

*”These were short-range engagements.”

    • ? What were?
  • Just read through this first para and reorganize it please…to me, it is awfully confusing. =/
  • Please be consistent with “U.S.” or “US”, even in the references.

*”"Moreover at long ranges gunners had to 'spot' the fall of shot to correct their aim... The longer the range, the lower the maximum theoretical rate of spotted fire."[15]”

    • Is the emphasis yours or the references’?


All-big-gun mixed-calibre ships
  • As I said before, ref(s) are needed for the first para.
Sorted and tweaked subsequent paragraphs to address the issues listed below.

*”The June issue of Proceedings of the US Naval Institute contained an article by US Navy's leading gunnery expert Prof P.R Alger proposing a main battery of eight 12-inch guns in twin turrets. Future chief constructor David W. Taylor responded, suggesting battleships of the future would be powered with steam turbines.[17]”

    • Year please (i.e. add “1902” (the book is right here in front of me lol))
    • Now wait. I’ve got U.S. Battleships, and Taylor didn’t “respond” – their comments were published in the same issue! Also, the magazine published “comments” from the two, not full article(s).
    • Also, these “comments” were in response to a March 1902 article by one Lieutenant Matt H. Signor who was arguing for a BB with two triple 12” turrets and two triple 10” turrets. It might be worth mentioning that, even if you only mention that Alger and Taylor were “responding to a proposal to build all-big-gun mixed-calibre battleships” (my words, use them in article if you wish)
I think Signor is a bit of a red herring here... we are trying to trace the origins of the all-big-gun idea in the USA, and talking about Signor's paper is probably just going to confuse the casual reader. Obviously he features in Friedman's account but I do not think it's necessary to give so much detail here. The Land (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; you're the expert...I'm just throwing ideas out there. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*”The June issue of Proceedings of the US Naval Institute contained an article by US Navy's leading gunnery expert Prof P.R Alger proposing a main battery of eight 12-inch guns in twin turrets. Future chief constructor David W. Taylor responded, suggesting battleships of the future would be powered with steam turbines.[17] In May 1902, the Bureau of Construction and Repair (BuC&R) submitted a design for the Mississippi-class battleship with twelve 10-inch guns in twin turrets, two at the ends and four in the wings.[17]”

    • June => May? Aren't you stepping backwards?
  • Third para, first sentence. An endash is needed between the year range.


The switch to all-big-gun designs
  • You link to William S. Sims here with just “Sims”. Spell out his name please…*”It is often argued a uniform calibre was particularly important because the risk of confusion between shell-splashes of 12-inch and lighter guns, which is held to make accurate ranging difficult. More recent investigation suggests firecontrol in 1905 was not advanced enough to use the salvo-firing technique where this confusion might be important;[26] confusion of shell-splashes does not seem to have been a concern of those working on all-big gun designs.[27]”
    • ”firecontrol” should be two words.
    • You continually switch between present and past tense, making this sentence confusing…
Tweaked a little. We are talking about what historians today are saying about discussions in the past, so some mixing of tenses is inevitable, but hopefully this is clearer.
Yep, it is. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”In 1895, a 12-inch gun might fire one round every four minutes; by 1902, two rounds per minute was usual.[29] “
    • Remove the semi-colon and replace it with “, but”.
Why? What's wrong with a decent, honest semicolon? ;)
For a transition. :P —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*”Cuniberti's idea - which he had already proposed to his own navy, the Regia Marina - was to make use of the high rate of fire of new 12-inch guns to produce devastating rapid-fire from heavy guns to replace the 'hail of fire' from lighter weapons.[31] “

    • Emdashes should be used, and without spaces.
    • Wasn’t his idea rejected by his own navy, which was the whole reason why he published it? Might be worth mentioning.
Well yes, but that should be obvious from the lack of Italian ships mentioned in this section, and furthermore—contrary to many accounts—Cuniberti is almost entirely uninfluential, so not worth dwelling on.
That's fine then. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Building the first Dreadnoughts

*”In Japan, the two battleships of the 1903-4 Programme were in fact the first to be laid down as all-big-gun designs, with eight 12-inch guns.”

    • First? Before……Dreadnought, I know, but will the casual reader know that?
  • ”The dreadnought breakthrough occurred in Britain in the October of 1905.”
    • ”As a result, the dreadnought”….
Saying "as a result" is a little odd: since the British developments didn't depend on the Japanese at all...
*facepalm*...that was dumb on my part.

*”One of Fisher's first actions on coming to office was to set up a Committee on Designs to consider future battleships and armoured cruisers.”

    • Ref please.

*” The greater efficiency of the turbines meant the 21-knot design speed could be achieved in a smaller and cheaper ship.[38]”

    • How were turbines more efficient? Maybe they got ships faster, but I thought that they used more fuel than reciprocating engines?
Argh. Yes. I think I need to do a bit of work on the turbines section.
Turbines produced more power per kg of machinery, and used less fuel, at high speeds - according to Breyer at least.
Reworded to reflect this. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (The whole para) “In Japan, the two battleships of the 1903-4 Programme were in fact the first to be laid down as all-big-gun designs, with eight 12-inch guns. However, the design had armour which was considered too thin, demanding a substantial redesign.[33] The financial pressures of the Russo-Japanese War and the short supply of 12-inch guns—which had to be imported from Britain—meant these ships were completed with a mixed 10- and 12-inch armament. The 1903-4 design also retained traditional triple-expansion steam engines.[34]“
    • Guns => armour => guns => engines …?
Yep. Because no-one has a very clear account of the progression of the 1903-4 design into the Satsumas, it is difficult to be clearer.
...then you won't hear an argument from me. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*(last sentence) is it necessary to link 21 Marc h 1906?


Design

*Period before Ref [43]

  • ” The characteristic of a dreadnought was an 'all-big-gun' armament. Dreadnoughts also carried heavy armour, principally in a thick belt at the waterline, though also in one or more armoured decks which became thicker over time. Protection against torpedoes, secondary armament, fire control, and command equipment also had to be crammed into the hull.”
    • Need a ref for this…
    • I would suggest rewording it like this, if a ref can cover it: “The hallmark of dreadnought battleships was an ‘all-big-gun’ armament, but they also normally had heavy armour concentrated mainly in a thick belt at the waterline and in one or more armoured decks. In addition, protection against torpedoes (typically torpedos), secondary armament, fire control , and command equipment also had to be crammed into the hulls.” (Please check the bulge link; being offline, I can’t be sure if it is right)
  • ” Dreadnought size was only eventually limited by the Washington Naval Treaty in 1922, when an upper limit of 35,000 tons was agreed; in subsequent years a number of treaty battleships were commissioned designed to build up to this limit.”
    • ”eventually” is redundant.
    • ”agreed to”
    • comma after “years”
    • reword the last part like this? ”a number of so called “treaty battleships” were built that adhered to this limit, but the departure of Japan from the agreement and the advent of the Second World War quickly destroyed the treaty.”Armament
  • (caption) “A plan of Bellerophon showing the armament distribution of a typical early British dreadnoughts; main battery is in twin turrets, with two on the 'wings'; secondary battery is clustered around the superstructure.”
    • Why the plural “dreadnoughts”?
    • ’’the’’ main battery … ‘wings’, while the secondary …”


Position of main armament
  • In this section, you use Orions and the like w/o an apostrophe…but in the lead, you used an apostrophe (i.e. Dreadnought's). Please pick one.
I think in the lead "Dreadnought's construction" refers to 'the construction of Dreadnought - correct me if I'm wrong)
  • ”The first nation to adopt the triple turret was Italy, with their first Dreadnought, the Dante Alighieri, soon followed by Russia with her Gangut class (also her first dreadnoughts),[50], the Austro-Hungarian Tegetthoff class, the U.S.'s Nevada class, and after World War I by the British G3 and N3 designs of 1921, and the first German triple-turreted capital ship, Scharnhorst. Several later designs used quadruple turrets, including the British King George Vs and French Richelieus.[51] The quadruple turrets, however, often suffered from technical difficulties - most famously HMS Prince of Wales in her engagement with the Bismarck.[52]“
    • Copy-edit please…and what technical difficulties?
    • Should Tegetthoff be italized?

Main armament power and caliber

  • ” The Japanese Nagato class in 1917 carried 16-inch guns, matched by the US Navy's Colorado class.”
    • replace the comma with “which was quickly”
  • ” Some designs went still further: the British "N3" class would have carried nine 18-inch guns, and the Japanese planned an un-named class, also with 18-inch armament.”
    • link N3 again please.
    • try this: ”…both the British (with their N3 class) and the Japanese were planning to build battleship classes that would mount 18-inch guns.”
  • ” However, the Washington Naval Treaty meant these mammoth battleships never got off the drawing board.” ...followed by… “The trend towards larger calibres was arrested by the Naval Treaties.”
    • Isn’t that saying the same thing twice?
    • A link to the Washington Naval Treaty is needed here too…
  • ” The German H-43 and H-44 designs proposed 508-mm (20-inch) guns, and there is evidence Hitler wanted calibres as high as 609-mm (24-inch);[59] the Japanese 'Super Yamato' design also used 508-mm guns.[60] “
    • instead of “used”, maybe “called for”?
  • ” n this context, the light guns tended to be mounted in unarmoured positions high on the ship to minimise weight and maximise field of fire.[63]”
    • I’m guessing that you need a capital “I” here…


Armour and Central citadels

(Armour)*No images under third-level headings per MOS:IMAGE please…

(Citadel sect.)

  • ” This 'citadel' was a box, armoured on all but one side, which contained the most important parts of the ship.”
    • Stupid question, but which side? (The bottom, right?)
  • ” The alternative was an 'all or nothing' protection scheme, developed by the U.S. Navy.”
    • Wikilink to [[All of nothing (armor)]].
  • ” The alternative was an 'all or nothing' protection scheme, developed by the U.S. Navy. The armour belt was tall and thick, but no side protection at all was provided to the ends of the ship or the upper decks. The armoured deck was also thickened. The 'all-or-nothing' system provided more effective protection against the very-long-range engagements of dreadnought fleets and was adopted outside the U.S. Navy after World War I.”
    • Ref(s)?
  • ” During the evolution of the dreadnought, armour schemes changed to reflect the greater risk of plunging shells from long-range gunfire, the increasing threat from both bombs dropped by aircraft and the need to protect battleships more adequately from torpedoes and mines.”
    • Ref(s)?
  • ” For instance, Yamato carried a 16.5 in main belt, as opposed to Dreadnoughts 11 in but a deck as thick as 9 in against Dreadnoughts 2 in.”
    • Copy-edit please!


Propulsion and Machinery

(propulsion)*No images under third-level headings please (MOS:IMAGE).

(machinery)*” Turbines offered more power than reciprocating engines for the same volume of machinery[73][74].”

    • Punctuation before refs.
  • ” Another often-mentioned advantage of turbines, their cleanliness and superior reliability[75], is largely illusory. By 1905, improved designs of reciprocating engine were available which made the reciprocating engine reliable and easy to work with.[76]”
    • Confusing to me…
  • ” Turbines were not without disadvantages. At slower, cruising speeds turbines were markedly less fuel-efficient than reciprocating engines. This was of particular importance for navies which required a long range at cruising speeds - and hence for the U.S. Navy, which even in the early 1900s was planning to cruise across the Pacific to engage the Japanese in the Philippines.[77] This was the reasoning behind the American decision to abandon turbines after installing them in North Dakota[78] (ordered 1907, launched 1908); it was not until Nevada (ordered 1911, launched 1914) that turbines were rehabilitated for U.S. dreadnoughts.”
    • Comma after “cruising speeds”
    • Emdash
    • I’m assuming that you want ref [78] after the ordering and launching dates?
    • Ref for the last sentence? (Look at the Nevada article; I’m sure that I put something in there about turbines when I wrote it.)
  • ” This disadvantage of the turbine was eventually overcome. The solution which eventually was generally adopted was the geared turbine, where gearing reduced the rotation rate of the propellors and hence increased efficiency. However, this solution required technical precision in the gears and hence was difficult to implement.”
    • DisadvantageS?
    • Ref(s)?
    • Again, is “propellors” spelled wrong?


Fuel and The Anglo-German arms race
  • ” The first generation of dreadnoughts used coal to fire the boilers which fed steam to the turbines. Coal had been in use since the very first steam warships, but had many disadvantages; it was labour-intensive to pack coal into the ship's bunkers and then feed it into the boilers, which became clogged with ash; coal produced thick black smoke which gave away the position of a fleet. In addition, coal was very bulky and had comparatively low thermal efficiency. Coal was, however, quite inert and could be used as part of the ship's protection scheme.[81]”
    • Copy-edit needed.
  • ” There were one or two technical problems with oil-firing, connected with the different distribution of the weight of oil fuel compared to coal[81], and the problems of pumping viscous oil.[83].”
    • Punctuation before refs…
  • ” Given the USA's plentiful oil and its demand for long-ranged ships, it is no surprise that the U.S. Navy was the first to wholeheartedly adopt oil-firing, deciding to do so in 1901; the Nevada class, ordered 1911.[85]”*
    • C/e please

(arms race section)

  • ” The building of the Dreadnought coincided with increasing tension between Britain and Germany.”
    • Stay consistent – either blah blah THE ‘’Dreadnought’’ or blah blah ‘’Dreadnought’’*Wikilink Nassau class again please.
  • Instead of “laid down in 1907, followed by the Helgoland class in 1909.”, try “…in 1907. This was followed…”
  • Unspace the emdashes!


U.S. dreadnoughts, Dreadnoughts in other countries and The “super-dreadnoughts”
  • “The U.S. continued to use reciprocating engines as an alternative to turbines until the Nevada classlaid down in 1912.”

(other countries sect.)

  • ” Turkey ordered two dreadnoughts from British yards, which were seized by the British, while Greece's, ordered from Germany, was taken over by the Germans.”
    • Why were they seized? It was WWI, but explain this.

(super-dreads sect.)

  • “The arrival of the super-dreadnought is commonly held to start with the British Orion-class, and for the German navy with Königs. “
    • (a) which one was actually first? (b) if you are going to name GB and G, why not the U.S. too?


…1914 onwards
  • ” The outbreak of World War I largely halted the dreadnought arms race. Funds and technical resources were diverted to more pressing priorities.”
    • Combine these sentences.
  • Ref [115] needs punctuation before it.
  • ” The weaker naval powers engaged in the Great War - France, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Russia - suspended their battleship programmes entirely.”
    • Emdash, unspace.
  • ” The final units of the Revenge and Queen Elizabeth classes were completed. The last two battleships of the Revenge class were redesigned as battlecruisers of the Renown class.”
    • Italize Revenge and QE; combine sentences using ‘but’
  • ” Fisher followed these ships with the even more extreme Courageous class ; very fast and heavily-armed ships with minimal, 3-inch armour, called 'large light cruisers' to get around a Cabinet ruling against new capital ships”
    • semi-colon spacing?
  • ” In Germany, two units of the pre-year Bayern class were gradually completed, but the other two laid down were still unfinished by the end of the War.”
    • ”Pre-year”?
  • ” In spite of the lull in battleship building, the years 1917-1922 saw the threat of a renewed naval arms race between Britain, Japan and the USA. The Battle of Jutland exerted a huge influence over the designs produced in this period.”
    • The World War I lull
  • Link using ”[[Admiral class battlecruiser|Admiral class]]” or “[[Admiral class battlecruiser|Admiral]] class”? (Which style? Both words or one word?) Be consistent throughout the entire article please…
The latter - think I'm OK on this now....
  • Ref [116] punctuation check
  • ” This programme was started slowly (in part because of a desire to learn lessons from Jutland), and never fulfilled entirely: however the new American ships, the Colorado class battleship and Lexington class battlecruiser, took a qualitative step above the British Queen Elizabeths and Admirals by mounting 16-inch guns.[117]”
    • A colon?
    • Parenthesis this instead of offsetting it with commas: “the Colorado class battleship and Lexington class battlecruiser”
  • ” At the same time the Imperial Japanese Navy was finally gaining authorisation for its 'eight-eight' battlefleet.”
    • Comma after “time”
  • ” The Nagato class, authorised in 1916, carried eight 16-inch guns like their American counterparts. The next year's naval bill authorised two more battleships and two more battlecruisers. This time the battleships, the Kaga class carried ten 16-inch guns.”
    • C/e needed.
  • ” In response, the Diet of Japan finally agreed to the completion of the 'eight-eight fleet', incorporating a further four battleships class.[120].”
    • ”a further”… what? Also, punctuation by the ref.
    • Should ‘eight-eight fleet be linked earlier?
  • ” These ships, the Kii would displace 43,000 tons; …”
    • Wait - shouldn't this be the Kii-class? :)
  • ” The British, impoverished by World War I, faced the possibility of becoming the world's third naval power.”
    • Thirld-largest?
  • ” A British Admiralty plan of June 1919 outlined a post-war fleet with 33 battleships and eight battlecruisers, which could be built and sustained for £171M a year; in practice only £84M was available.”
    • …but in reality…
  • ”The ships which survived the treaty, including the most modern super-dreadnoughts of all three navies, formed the bulk of international capital ship strength through the 1920s and 1930s and, with some modernisation, into World War II.
    • ”the”, not into and “Second World War”, not World War II (Brit Eng).
Generally we are using "World War I", so "World War II" - I do not believe this is a British vs US usage issue.
  • ”The ships built under the terms of the Treaty to replace outdated vessels are known as treaty battleships.[124] “
    • ”Were” known (past tense)
  • ” Most of the German dreadnought fleet was scuttled at Scapa Flow by its crews in 1919; the remainder were handed over as war prizes.[125] “
    • Is this is the right spot? You were just talking about the 20’s through WWII…
Moved... what do you think...
  • ” From this point on, 'dreadnought' became less widely used. Most pre-dreadnought battleships were scrapped or hulked after the World War I,[126] so the term 'dreadnought' became less necessary. Even the battleships of World War II were sometimes referred to as dreadnoughts.”
    • What? You say one thing, then contradict it completely with the next sentence!
Hehe. Yes. Will see what I can do with that sentence.


References

  • These are, bluntly, a total MoS mess. You have got to be consistent! At different points, you use “Author, p.(space) ___” ; “Author, p.(nospace)___” ; “Author Title, p. ___” ; Title, Author, ISBN, p. ___” or “Author, Title, Location, Year. p.___”. You have to pick one style. =/
I have tried to standardise on "Author, p. _" but if the same author has more than one entry in the bibliography, "Author, Title, p. __" - hopefully this is in order.
Ooooo duh. I will help with this, but how about we go to the "Author, Title, p. __" for all of them for looks? I'll actually do this later if you want (I stole my mom's old clunker cpu with a crap keyboard to reply to this becuase I have no Wi-fi right now (annoying...); I'll use my laptop later to do this. Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 00:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #39 - The Naval Annual 1905 has a wikilink but no entry in the bibliography below. Was this an oversight?
  • Ref #79 needs to be linked to USS Saratoga (CV-3)
  • Ref #126 - what makes [4] a reliable source?
It isn't, will take it out.

So my computer died about 20-30 seconds after I finished these. :) Now that I am on, I pasted this in and tried to replace all of the ’ and ‘ type apostrophes with Wikipedia's straight '. I left quotations alone though! I hope that this helps; it took me awhile. :) Also, I don't know when I will be on again, as my internet is being screwy again (I think...I'm not really sure yet -_-), but I will get back to this as soon as I can. Cheers! Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 05:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to going to so much effort! Will be two or three days before I can make all of the changes you suggest, but have interspersed a few comments for the time being. The Land (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I was bored on the ride anyway. :) I forgot to mention that I expect all of these comments to be dealt with promptly. ;) No, but seriously now, just strike as you go through them (this isn't FAC, and I don't want to check each one); once most of them have been dealt with, I will just go through everything again (it was a fun read the first time, why not the second time too? :D). Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 00:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very helpful! The Land (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have made msot of the changes you suggest. This page now looks lilke a total mess! The Land (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd comments from Ed

edit

Alright, review #2, a few days late. Switching to Neutral for now. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Origins
    • page # for ref 7.
  • wikilink Dreadnought...I know that you don't want to overlink, but you don't want to inconvenience the reader either!
  • Building the first Dreadnoughts
  • Central citadel
    • ” For instance, Yamato carried a 16.5 in main belt, as opposed to Dreadnoughts 11 in but a deck as thick as 9 in against Dreadnoughts 2 in. The main belt itself was increasingly angled inwards to give a greater effective thickness against low-angle shells.”
      • Ref(s)?
Deleted that statement about low-angle shells.
You still need refs for the sentence though.
  • Underwater protection and subdivison
    • ” The final element of the protection scheme of the first dreadnoughts was the subdivision of the ship below the waterline into several watertight compartments. If the hull was holed - by shellfire, mine, torpedo, or collision - then, in theory, only one area would flood and the ship could survive. To make this precaution even more effective, many dreadnoughts had no hatches between different underwater sections, so that even a surprise hole below the waterline need not sink the ship. However, there were still a number of instances where flooding spread between underwater compartments.”
      • Emdash and ref(s) needed.
        • Still need (a) ref(s).
  • Propulsion
    • ” Dreadnoughts were propelled by two to four screw propellors. Dreadnought herself, and all British dreadnoughts, had screw shafts driven by steam turbines. However, the first generation of dreadnoughts built in other nations used the slower triple-expansion steam engine which had been standard in pre-dreadnoughts.”
      • Ref(s)? And is “propellors” is spelled wrong? (or is that Brit Eng?)
Propellors is British. Not sure which part of that is controversial?
WP:V...verifiability, not truth is needed. "screw shafts driven by steam turbines"...where did you get that from? Same Q for the second sentence.
  • The first three paras of "Battleship building from 1914 onwards" need references.

The outbreak of World War I largely halted the dreadnought arms race as funds and technical resources were diverted to more pressing priorities. The foundries which produced battleship guns were diverted to producing artillery for armies, and shipyards were flooded with orders for small ships. The weaker naval powers engaged in the Great War—France, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Russia—suspended their battleship programmes entirely. Britain and Germany continued building battleships and battlecruisers but at a reduced pace.

In Britain, the British government's moratorium on battleship building and the return of Jackie Fisher to the Admiralty in 1914 meant a renewed focus on the battlecruiser. The final units of the Revenge and Queen Elizabeth classes were completed, though last two battleships of the Revenge class were redesigned as battlecruisers of the Renown class. Fisher followed these ships with the even more extreme Courageous class; very fast and heavily-armed ships with minimal, 3-inch armour, called 'large light cruisers' to get around a Cabinet ruling against new capital ships. Fisher's mania for speed culminated in his suggestion for 'HMS Incomparable', a mammoth, lightly-armoured battlecruiser.

In Germany, two units of the pre-war Bayern class were gradually completed, but the other two laid down were still unfinished by the end of the War. Hindenburg, also laid down before the start of the war, was completed in 1917. The Mackensen class battlecruisers, designed in 1914-15, were begun but never finished.

  • This is an ED, DO THIS SOON, i.e within the next 2-3 days...please ping me if I forget :)
  • Something about the Delaware-class should be in here; they were described by many as the U.S.’ first dreadnoughts. Whether they or the SC's were is a matter for debate, but both should be included IMHO. I may try adding this myself later (when I have wi-fi again). We’ll see.
I don't think I've ever heard this but feel free.
Well, here is just one link. (A passing mention, but I didn't want to go hunting ;) - first column, a couple sentences in. [5]
Whoo, done. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've covered all your over points as well. The Land (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; there are too many breaches in MoS to allow this article to be promoted. I've done quite a bit of work, insofar, in fixing footnotes. They are completely inconsistent; sometimes the author and book are stated before the page number, sometimes the page number comes first (the first way is the correct way, and I changed as many as I could). Page ranges should be separated by en dashes, not normal dashes. Dashes in the text separating complete thoughts should be em dashes. Units should have conversions, using the conversion templates; I will go through that when I have time. There are entire statements that are unsourced. I feel that these are issues that can't be solved within the time it will take the review the article. The article should instead be put through a peer review, where it will get a more exhaustive look on what has to be fixed in order to guarantee promotion. On the other hand, you have obviously put a lot of time into the article, and information wise it looks really good. There is just wikignoming left in order to get it up to standards. But, this will take some time. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing. Do you have any areas where these are lacking to add to The Ed's - I should be able to fix these shortly.
Re conversion. Please do not indiscriminately apply conversion templates in an article like this - if every instance of "12-in" is changed to 12 inches (305 mm) then the article will really become unreadable.
Furthermore, A-class is defined as:An A-Class article should approach the standards for a Featured article (FA), but will typically fall short because of minor style issues. Exactly what those minor style issues are if not the quality of the dashes in the footnotes, I don't know. There are no non-trivial breaches of the MOS.
Regards, The Land (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, these type of MoS breaches aren't minor, especially since they are extensive. The en dashes in the footnotes have been added. In regards to the conversion templates, they are required by MoS. All units have to be converted in the article. On the other hand, for the ACR we can compromise and convert some of the instances. However, the rest of the instances need to follow MoS to their maximum degree (the unit should always be spelled out, except the unit it's converted to in parenthesis). I will convert some, and we'll about the rest. JonCatalán(Talk) 23:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few conversions (particularly mileage and yardage) which, on reflection, are obviously missing. But do bear in mind that some units, particularly in, are used adjectivally e.g. "12-in gun" is the name of a gun model, not simply "a gun 12 inches (305 mm) in calibre". The Land (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know; the conversion template can be written to take this into consideration. I've had to learn the conversion template, as I've had to use it in the several articles I've brought up to FA-status. I've gone through some paragraphs converting things. I have to go to work, but when I come back hopefully I will do some more. The article also needs to be copyedited, and hopefully I will be able to help you out with that, as well (unfortunately, I am writing a number of articles simultaneously, so my time is limited). JonCatalán(Talk) 23:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/A-class_FAQ, you are quite correct. Evidently there has been some instruction creep since the last time I put an article up for A-class review. Thank you for your help, I do appreciate it. The Land (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some copy-editing and added conversion templates - for gun calibres, at least the first instance in a section is converted (whihc I think is the right amount). The Land (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now the footnotes should be in considerably better shape as well, and I've added a couple of sources which were mentioned in footnotes but not the bibliography. The Land (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harlsbottom

edit
  • Still think genesis of Satsuma is too cut and dried. Certainly Breyer was never in a position to confirm that she was laid down with eight 12-inch guns. I can dig out a reference saying that Japan was relying on her own Kure-built guns by then, and I've already brought up an extremely reliable source that states the Satsuma design was laid down as she was built - similar to a Lord Nelson. According to Ishibashi Takao Illustrated Ships Data of IJN 1868-1945: Vol. 1/Battleships and Battle Cruisers. Tokyo: Namiki Shobô, ISBN 978-4-89063-223-7, p. 168 there is nothing to suggest a modification of the Satsuma design which means mixed armament from the start.
Can I leave rewriting that paragraph in your hands?
  • When mentioning triple turrets in "Position of main armament", as well as the N3 and G3 classes the Nelsons may as well be mentioned?
I put the Nelsons in instead, to confine it to only classes which were actually built.
  • "Quadruple turrets, however, were frequently unreliable." Taken from Friedman, Battleships: Design...', p. 132. It says that such turrets "often had years of teething trouble" which doesn't neccessarily mean frequently unreliable. Eventually the British 14-inch turret worked quite well-Hodges in The Big Gun, p. 104 states that the R.N. was expecting trouble from the mount anyway so that problems did occur is hardly a revelation. The massive French language book I have on Richelieu doesn't suggest any real trouble with theirs. Friedman also doesn't directly refer to the quadruple mount so much as to mounts designed to treaty-limitations, which would certainly include the troublesome British 16-inch triple turrets which did give problems for many years.
I've just removed the statement. I am sure it will get reintroduced at some stage since "The King George V class had unreliable turrets" is a common naval history factoid, repeated by almost everything every said about the Battle of the Demark Strait. However, as you say, one incident doesn't mean a general statement about naval history... ;-)

In "Dreadnoughts in other countries":

"The seizure of the two Turkish dreadnoughts, Reshadiye and Sultan Osman I(ex-HMS Erin and Agincourt) nearing completion in 1914 in Britain, had far-reaching international repercussions. The Turks were outraged by the British move and the Germans saw an opening. Through skillful diplomacy and by handing over the battlecruiser Goeben and the cruiser Breslau, the Germans maneuvered the Ottoman Empire into joining the Central Powers."

"Ex" doesn't really work with Erin and Agincourt. And this is a somewhat controversial topic as there are many people who believe that Turkey was bent on going to war on Germany's side anyway. I hardly think René Greger is alone qualified to make the call. The class of monitors armed by Bethlehem Steel was the Abercrombie class monitor.

I have rewritten that bit for better style and also to scale down the importance of the ships.

As well as U-Boats a key operational element of the German plan for Jutland were airships for scouting, which never materialised due to weather.

I have mentioned Zeppelins, though I am sure you could do better.

I can and will bring up sources to back up these points, just thought I'd put them out there. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The Land (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another comment - the "Battleship building from 1914 onwards" section says that "The Nagato class [...] carried eight 16-inch guns like their American counterparts." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Colorado-class battleships designed with 16" guns in response to the Nagatos? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::Let me refer to my books tomorrow..... The Land (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at Friedman and Breyer and the answer seems to be "not really". Both classes were authorised in 1916, though the Colorados took much longer to complete. Friedman doesn't mention the Colorados being a response to the Nagatos that I can see (and one would expect him to); but he does say the US Navy had wanted the 16-inch gun since 1911. So "this happened at the same time" is probably more accurate than "Japan did this and the USA responded". The Land (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, thanks. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TomStar81

edit
  • In the last paragraph in the section "Origins" you have the the controversy pointed cited at the beginning and the end of the paragraph, which to me seems redundent. Wouldn't one citation at either the beginning or the end be enough to cover both points?
Yes, that was poor prose. I have rewritten it a bit - as things stood we were probably giving undue weight to Fairbanks' view that fire control was relatively unimportant (a point which Harlsbottom has raised in various places).
  • On the issue of shell splashes: have you looked into the use of colored dyes to distuguish splashes? According to my reaserch for the Iowa class, each of the four completed battleships had a dye pack they fired which allowed the battleships to tell which splashes belong to which ship. Its possible a similar system was used for ranging.
I have read half a dozen books and articles which cover shell-spotting in this period and none of them mention coloured dyes. So I suspect it was an innovation between the wars. Harlsbottom has a more detailed knowledge than I do, perhaps he can answer this more authoritatively....
Just noticed this point. I think it may have been a WWII innovation - certainly in the Royal Navy at least. I'm sure there'll be something on navweaps.com about it, will have a browse. EDIT: Already found something on it at [6] "Splash Colors". The U.S.N. first introduced it in 1930. Being able to accurately spot the fall of shot when multiple ships are firing. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 23:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another look through my files today - specifically Royal Navy C.B. 3001/1914-1936 Summary of Progress in Naval Gunnery, 1914-1916, pp. 119-120. The Royal Navy identified the need for coloured bursting charges in 1931, but as of 1936 hadn't yet put them into practice (although by WWII they certainly had). --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 21:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph of the section "Central citadel" you have the sentence "During the evolution of the dreadnought, armour schemes changed to reflect the greater risk of plunging shells from long-range gunfire, and the increasing threat from both bombs dropped by aircraft." The wording "...both bombs dropped by aircraft" strikes me as something of an incomplete thought, I would either loose the "both" or note which two bombs we are referring to.
Lost the both
  • In the section "Japan", why is semi-dreadnought bolded?
not any more.
  • In the third paragraph of the section "Dreadnoughts in other countries" you have the sentence "However, a constitutional crisis in 1909 10 meant no construction could be approved." Me thinks that there should be a dash between 1909 and 1910: "However, a constitutional crisis in 1909-10 meant no construction could be approved."
hehe, I used   rather than – .... - whoops!
  • In the second to last paragraph of the section "The super dreadnoughts" you have the sentence "Their pdesign emphasized the vertical protection needed in short-range battles." The word pdesin is obviously a spelling error, but I am not sure if you meant previous design or simply design.
Typo fixed.

Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 09:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed, I believe. Many thanks. The Land (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm not going to go hunting to strike my neutral above...but I'm supporting this. There may still be some MoS errors, but not enough/not noticeable enough for A-class—IMO, A-class is for content and FAC is for style. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:28, 18 January 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.
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.

U-1 class submarine (Austria-Hungary)

edit
Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has passed a GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A couple of things which I'm not sure are really needed in the lead
  • "The U-1-class boats were designed by American Simon Lake's Lake Torpedo Boat Company of Bridgeport, Connecticut, and built at the navy yard in Pola"; perhaps it is worth mentioning they were built to an American design, but I'm not sure we need all the details here.
  • "During the evaluation of the U-1 boats, the gasoline engines were found to be incapable of powering them to the contracted speed."; again, surely this kind of detail belongs in the body of the article.
  • Design and construction.
  • "The Navy ordered plans for two boats" seems to indicate that U-1 and U-2 were different designs - while reading in more detail this clearly isn't the case I found it a little confusing.
    • I've channged so that it reads "… ordered plans for the building of two boats …" rather than "… ordered plans for two boats …". Do you think that will help avoid similar confusion? — Bellhalla (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the design speed referred to above which they failed to meet?
  • Infobox - the way the 'differences after modernization' are listed aren't entirely clear - did speed, range, complement, armament or dive depth change as a result of the modification? If so are the values listed for those characteristics before or after figures?
    • I've reconfigured the infobox so that characteristics known to have changed are indicated by "As built" and "After modernization". Sources don't say whether the other characteristics (speed, range, etc.) were from before or after the modernization, so I have, regrettably, left those ambiguous.. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:12, 12 January 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.
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.

Yamato class battleship

edit
Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been a work in redevelopment progress since November 2008. Having been completely revamped in the last week, it successfully passed its GA-Review on 11 January 2009. I believe it meets all the criteria for A-Class. Cam (Chat) 05:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Outstanding read. Good work. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just watch the double spaces - I've removed a few but don't have the time to go through the whole page. John Smith's (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a great article but I don't think that it provides enough information (though I'm not going to oppose the nomination as the quality is very high).
    • I think that the sentences in the intro which state "Only one of the three vessels would ever see active combat—the Yamato during the Battle off Samar. The Musashi would spend the majority of her life in the naval-bases at Brunei, Truk, and Kure, before being sunk during the Battle of Leyte Gulf." are a bit confusing given that Yamato went to basically the same places as Musashi until Leyte Gulf - it might be better to say that both ships spent almost their entire service tied up at anchor here and then expand upon Yamato.
Fixed. Cam (Chat) 05:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What happened to the planned 4th and 5th ships of the class? Were they ever laid down, and when and why were they canceled?
Clarified at the beginning of the "ships" section. Cam (Chat) 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the secrecy with which the ships were built, what was the ONI's sources of information on them? - I presume that it would have come only from signals intelligence and aerial and submarine photos (which obviously could only provide limited details) - is this correct?
You'd have to ask Tom that. Cam (Chat) 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who added that info; Friedman in U.S. Battleships did not state how the ONI got their info. I'd assume that you are right, with the addition that they got their names through radio intercepts, but that is OR. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guess again. "...despite the most vigorous efforts, the United States Navy was unable to discover any concrete details about Japan's construction plans until after the Imperial Fleet had put the Yamato class-the most powerful battleships of all time-into commission. Not even the reading of Japanese ciphers and codes after 1940 provided the United States Navy with much solid information on the technical characteristics of the ships that top Japanese naval planners had regarded as their most effective weapon." -- Rearming in a Vacuum: United States Navy Intelligence and the Japanese Capital Ship Threat, 1936-1945. Malcolm Muir, Jr. The Journal of Military History 54 (October 1990):473-85. American Military Institute. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well....I wish that it would have said where they got the info though... :( —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like some technical details and other information of value came from paperwork off captured Imperial forces. I'm still rereading my source but I intend to add this and other information to the article shortly. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use of 'the' before the ships' names is inconsistent - sometimes it appears and other times it doesn't - is there a preferred convention for IJN ship names?
fixed to fit one standard throughout. Cam (Chat) 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The potted histories of the ships could be expanded - it seems inconsistent that light damage Yamato suffered at Kure in 1945 is mentioned but not the damage both ships suffered from submarine attacks during their careers
Expanded. Cam (Chat) 07:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'Aspects of the Yamato Class' doesn't mention Shinano's armament and armour. As these were quite different to her two 'sisters' they should be covered here
I can expand on Shinano's armament, and I can attempt to find what limited information exists concerning the Shinano's armour (I do, however, know for a fact that it was quite weak and poorly constructed when she sank). Cam (Chat) 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'media' section needs citations, and could be expanded with material on how the ships are still viewed as a symbol of Japanese industrial power and inventiveness by modern Japanese society. I was in Japan in October and visited the large and obviously well funded Yamato Museum in Kure (which is directly across the road from the JMSDF museum) and will see if any of my photos are worth adding. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As another comment it might be worthwhile covering the debate over whether the ships were a waste of resources - this is often raised in relation to these ships (eg, it's often noted that the resources which went into these ships, which hardly saw any combat, could have instead produced dozens of the anti-submarine escorts which Japan desperately needed - I think that there's a good discussion of this in the book 'Kaigun') if that helps. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting possibility. The difficulty for me would be that I have almost no access to resources concerning that debate. It would definitely be interesting to look into though—Yamamoto himself said that over 1,000 aircraft or 3 carriers could have been constructed with the same amount of resources and financial cost. I'll look into it. Cam (Chat) 01:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I found this site that discusses which BB in history was the best. While that subject is of no use here, the comments on the Yamato-class' armor IS. :) I don't think that this would qualify as an RS, but if anyone has some of his sources (listed here, at the bottom)....maybe we can add that? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. As it turns out, the combinedfleet pages were identified as a reliable source in one of Cla68's previous FACs. Cam (Chat) 16:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O really? Well that's cool :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that same site has been linked from the Iowa class article in the external links section for some years now. It was, and continues to serve as, a deterrent to edit wars and POV pushing by allowing visitors to look at comparison of seven major battleship classes and see how they would hypothetically compare to each other. Its worked well for me, but I must confess that I have never really thought about using the site as sources since I considered the site to be a kind of forum/blog. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, evidently it is... :) Now, I don't think that we can talk about the hypothetical comparisons (that would be OR, even if it was off-site), but we can reference the comments about, say, the armor, right? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I used it for, to reference an explanation of the structural weaknesses in Yamato's armour belt. Cam (Chat) 21:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, moot point. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:49, 17 January 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.
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.

SS Timothy Bloodworth

edit
Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article just emerged from its second AFD but I think it's A-Class material after a recent expansion. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Support
  • Is there really not a single picture available? Even if you'd have to use a Fair-use tag, it seems that a picture actually of her would be nice, or at least of her in convoy or something.
    • None that I have found.
  • "Timothy Bloodworth's whereabouts on 16 December 1944 are not reported, but on that date—the beginning of the German Ardennes Offensive—two of her complement of Naval Armed Guardsmen were killed" How and why were they killed? This whole paragraph confuses me - you say the whereabouts are unknown, then say it was in Antwerp. Were the Guardsmen killed in a separate incident from the V-2, as it appears to say later?
    • Wow, that was confusing, wasn't it? I've split the paragraph into two paragraphs that describe the separate attacks. I hope this makes what happened more clear.
  • Is there something that the Grain Program of 1954 can be linked to, or if not, can it be explained a bit in the article?
    • That wording is from the scanned custody card. I had originally left that wording in so as to try and expand on the topic, but a search for more specific information was fruitless. Rather than try and dig into US farm policy of the 1950s, I've eliminated that phrase from the article.
– Joe Nutter 16:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Replies interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (P.L. 480), which deals with sale and barter of surplus commodities and overseas relief.[7] Kablammo (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kablammo, for finding that. I'm a bit hesitant, though, to make the connection to legislation signed on 10 July 1954, four days after the ship was withdrawn to load grain. There's also no indication in the source that the grain stored on the ship was for export. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; while it is reasonable to assume that a law which was under consideration and headed for passage for several months prior to enactment could inspire the withdrawal of a vessel from reserve prior to the president's signature, we do not know that. This may indicate alternatives. But I'm confused as to the origin of the phrase "Grain Program of 1954" as the card does not mention it. (Also, in this version of the article prior to your deletion of the phrase, footnotes 18 and 19 go to the same source.) Do you know where the Grain Program reference is from? I don't think it is important to the article, and if we cannot determine which (if any) "grain program" is involved it should stay out of the article. Kablammo (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase is from the back of the custody card (it actually says "Grain Program 1954"; I unintentionally added the "of" in there.) The grain storage was probably under one of the US programs that purchased grains in surplus years for price controls.
Thanks for the heads up on the ref links. Looking at it, I found that with the similar names and links, I had mangled all three. I've sorted out the mess to make sure that all now link to the proper record, and that all three are the proper reference for the facts mentioned in the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a good article which meets all the criteria. I'm a little bit uncomfortable about the frequency with which it is stated that events in the ship's history are 'unreported in sources' and the like as this implies that all possible sources were consulted but records no longer exist - was this the case? (eg, are there primary sources on the ship which may or may not exist but which weren't consulted?). Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Valid point, Nick. The answer to your parenthetical question is yes. To take a look at one instance that you mention, the 16 December incident: the sole source I have that mentions it (the typically reliable usmm.org) gives the date and and the number of casualties but no other specifics. It seems important enough to mention in the article, but is there a better way to say, essentially, that I've reported all the information that's there? — Bellhalla (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, I'm not sure. You could just say 'the ship was attacked' and not mention the lack of detail in the sources, but this is also unsatisfactory. Likewise, even if you had the time, resources and motivation to dig up primary sources (eg, the ship's records, if they still exist) this would be problematic under WP:OR. On further consideration, you probably handled this the right way. What do you think about saying that something is 'unreported in secondary sources' rather than 'unreported in sources'? Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I would have liked an image of the actual ship, but understand that sometimes that simply isn't possible. It meets all of our criteria I believe. The sources look good, reliable and well-formatted. The prose is good and flows ok. It seems to cover all available information, even if that isn't all that much available. No concerns here, looks good, well done. Woody (talk) 00:48, 7 January 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.

Failed

edit
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.

Italian battleship Roma (1940)

edit
Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • majestic titan)


Roma served during the Second World War. She participated in no missions during the war, but was hit twice during Allied bomber raids. Fifteen months after she was commissioned, she was blown up by two German Fritz X bombs. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments This is a good article, but it feels incomplete and doesn't go into detail on any topics other than her loss.
    • I'm a bit concerned about sourcing:
      • Almost all material is sourced to 'Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II'. While this is an excellent reference, it's not enough by itself. There are specialist works on the Italian Navy which should provide further details on the ship and histories of the naval war in the Med which cover her demise.
      • A Midshipman's War: A Young Man in the Mediterranean Naval War 1941–1943 written by what appears to be a British or Canadian author (who was apparently a very junior officer during the war) seems a curious reference for an article on an Italian battleship. What makes this a reliable source on the ship?
    • The article is a bit brief, even allowing for the ship's short and inglorious career. This may be due to its reliance on a single source.
    • The opening para's prose is choppy and doesn't flow well
    • Warships aren't normally 'deployed' - they either 'sortie' or 'sail' (eg, instead of "Roma was deployed as the flagship of Admiral Carlo Bergamini" you could say "Roma sailed as the flagship...")
    • "When combined with a lack of capable vessels to escort the capital ships, the combat potential of the Italian Navy was vitually non-existant." seems a bit of an over-statement given the continued operations of Italian destroyers, small craft and submarines.
    • "B-17 aircraft fitted with 908 kg (2,000 lb) armor-piercing bombs were able to damage the stationary battleships with two bombs each." is awkward - "The two battleships were each hit by two 908 kg (2,000 lb) armor-piercing bombs dropped by B-17s during a raid on 5 June", perhaps?
    • Did the ship complete a program of shakedown cruisers and working up exercises before entering service, or was sufficient fuel not available? - at present its unclear if she was ever a fully effective unit.
    • "However, an attack upon Italia on Roma at 1537" do you mean "Italia or Roma"?
    • "Roma was hit on the same side somewhere between frames 100 and 108" and "another Fritz X slammed into the starboard side of the Romas deck, between frames 123 and 136" - these descriptions are a bit meaningless in isolation given that readers don't know where these locations were on the ship.
    • Do we know anything about how the German airmen felt about attacking their former Ally's ships?
    • Is there any reason why the excellent 3D images of the ship at Wikicommons haven't been used in the article? Without doing any checking, their copyright status seems OK (assuming good faith on behalf of the editor who signed them and uploaded them as their own work). Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nick, many thanks for the thorough review. I understand the points about a single source and will be attempting to address them. A Midshipman's War is only used to source the ships (the accompanying cruisers), but the specialized Italian Navy work I am hoping to obtain should (I hope) allow me to replace it. According to all the sources I have seen, both reliable and unreliable, the ship did literally nothing but shuttle between naval bases a couple times before the final fateful mission, but that doesn't mean this can't be expanded more... Great point about the frames; I didn't even think about it because G&D has a nice diagram showing where they hit. The 3D images were uploaded by a user who hasn't edited there or on any project since, which made me slightly suspicious... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry Ed but this seems to be another "McArticle" in pursuit of the goals for OMT. I'm really quite surprised that you would submit this in the condition it is in. Furthermore, with only 34 edits to the article how can you possibly believe the article is complete? Why did you avoid the GA process? Nick pointed out far too many issues that I agree should be addressed and I don't believe there is time to solve them all within a reasonable period in order to meet A-class. I don't believe there should be a mad rush to complete articles for a project goal. Please use your library resources. I recently discovered that MelCat has several thousand books in electronic form and there are many naval related titles. Please look for them. --Brad (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be sorry, both you and Nick have many valid points. It's comments like these that make me glad I come through these reviews!
    • I honestly thought that the article wasn't bad, but I was most certainly wrong. I worked at length in my userspace, so I didn't have many edits in writing it. I didn't go to GA because it's a waste of a month's time. :) I didn't think that this would require a lengthy article due to the ship's inactivity, but I will attempt to address all of the concerns after I get home for Christmas break (requesting inter-library loan to come to my college would be useless when I am leaving in less than a week). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator - withdraw - I didn't think that the reliance on G&D was such a problem, but it obviously is. :-) Also, all of the other points raised are quite relevant. Thank you everyone; my replies are interspersed above. As I will not be able to even think about addressing many of these serious concerns for ~2 weeks, I will withdraw this. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:22, 5 December 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.
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.

USS Massachusetts (BB-59)

edit
Not promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): TomStar81 (Talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I am looking for feedback on how the article can be improved ahead its FAC, whenever that may occur. This article is currently under the spotlight, hence the construction template. Any suggestions for improvement would be welcome. Note that as this is part of the spotlight effort I am one of only several people that have worked diligently on the article, so others may move to address the issues raised here. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • No problems reported with dismabig links. One external link reported as dead, please check and advise. Several images are missing alt text, please add this to the article's images forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - just two quick things I noticed:
    • I have added three cite needed tags to segiments that require a reference in the article.
      • Got them cited now.
    • Endashes are required between date ranges used in the article, and page ranges used in citations.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments This is a good article, but needs work to reach A-class. Aside from the need to provide some extra citations, my comments are:
    • I'm rather uncomfortable about the extent to which DANFS and other USN websites have been used as sources. There's no shortage of books on the USN and its battleships in World War II which can be drawn on (the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II is an obvious starting point). These sources would also be helpful in expanding the article from its current relatively short (for an article on a BB!) state.
    • The para on Jean Bart doesn't seem necessary - this material (eg, that she was an incomplete but combat-capable ship) could be summarised in one sentence.
    • The 'Operational area of Massachusetts in 1943-44' map is a bit misleading given that the area highlighted is New Caledonia, not the ship's area of operations. As the map doesn't name any of the locations identified in the article it's not of much use - are better maps of the South Pacific available on Commons?
    • The small para on 1943 seems a bit short - can this be expanded?
    • Hollandia isn't 'an island' - it's a town in New Guinea
    • Was Massachusetts the centrepiece of the task group she operated in in 1944? - if not, labeling it as 'her' task group is a bit wrong
    • The coverage of Typhoon Cobra seems excessive, and doesn't mention Massachusetts - did she sustain any damage?
      • OK, I see that she's mentioned in the final sentence. Given that the Typhoon doesn't seem to have had a big impact on her, one or two sentences seem appropriate.
    • The phrase 'veterans and citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' is too flowery and vauge. How did they raise the money? - was it through donations, or did the state government pay (or both).
    • Why was equipment stored aboard the battleship?
    • Was she really a 'salvage yard'? 'Parts hulk' is probably the better term, and even that may be over-stating things.
    • How did she move to Boston in 1998 - I assume that she was towed, but this isn't specified
    • The statement that the ship is currently "mostly unaltered, adhering to her World War II era configuration" seems to clash with the previous statements that large amounts of equipment was stripped from her in the 1940s and 1980s
    • I don't think that you should say that she's one of 'only' eight US battleships to be preserved - this is a remarkable number given that every other World War II era battleship worldwide was either sunk or scrapped Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selected replies:
    • I've got a book in mind for the project, but so far have not been able to find it. More will be added sooner or later, more sooner than later I hope. Ed may be able to help, I will ask him.
    • On the matter of Jean Bart, her para in the article came about do to this. We can yank it if necessary, but if at all possible I would proefer to trim and incorporate.
    • Typhoon Cobra para mentions Massachusetts at the end; last line.
    • Equipment stored on the battleship - by this I assume you mean the stuff salvaged for the Iowa reactivation? If that be the case it was due to the similarity of the Iowa and SoDak classes.
    • A tug moved her to Boston - I have images to prove that. I am looking into tracking down a name or a company or something of that nature; give me a few days and I will get back to you on that.
    • Unaltered I take to mean when compared to the Iowa class, which were physically rebuilt several times when reactivated for duty.
    • Lose the only. Got it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by doncram
    • Looks good...
    • I added the NRHP/NHL inventory/nomination document, and NHL summary webpage link, but have not reviewed those sources for whether there is additional useful material to add to this article.
      • Thanks.
    • As I've noted on another one or two BB articles, I find the claim that there are 8 battleships intended to be preserved as museum ships to be confusing / not worthy of discussion in an article about one of the museum ships, as here. It is again confusing to be listing 6 battleships, when 7 would be expected in a list of the others. The footnote clarification to convey that all 8 are donated but in fact there are only 7 which are museum ships, because the Iowa is whatever, detracts from this article, which should be about the Massachusetts.
      • The problem here though is that the article is supposed to touch on all aspects of the subject it covers, and this aspect comes under the museum ships header. Its not necessarily important to Massachusetts per say, but to the idea that there are other battleship museums in the United States this line is important. If consensus develops to remove the mention I will do so, but to me this then creates an absence of coverage for the article in the museum ship section. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just tried in this edit reducing the coverage in the main text (and eliminating one of two "Notes" in the Notes section of the article). I don't mind some mention, but it's all too salient, and there's no reason in this article to set up a mystery about why u list 6 six ships and then explain about a "missing" one. My edit changes to just a list of the 7. Mentioning the 7 still should perhaps be in a See also section, as it seems a bit like "advertising" for the seven other articles. Or could one link to a battleships article section that mentions them all, be used instead of 7 links? My edit was just one reducing suggestion, feel free to revert or edit as you wish. doncram (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That works, although I would have waited for at least one more person to agree with you before changing anything. In my mind I adhere to a policy that one user's suggestions are good but if two or more users agree on the same points then its a must fix item. Just so you know, I would have gotten to it eventually had that been the case. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support
  • Please clarify that Charles Francis Adams was not the current Secretary of the Navy in 1941 in the Construction section.
  • "From 12–14 October, she protected forces hitting Formosa." Please rephrase to something more professional.
  • "this result in the removal of all the WWII era anti-aircraft guns" in the footnote is awkward.
A few clarification and style issues, but nothing that can't be fixed and can block it from getting A-Class. – Joe N 00:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over my comments again I realized one of them didn't make much sense, but I would like to know that the others will be fixed. – Joe N 21:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joe. I believe that I have addressed your concerns [8], though I may have introduced a new one with the addition of {{rs}}. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. – Joe N 20:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Were the .50 cal guns mounted on the ship the standard M2 type? If so, it should be linked.
    • A total of nine full broadsides—all nine guns—and thirty—eight partial—varying between three and six guns—were fired, with five hitting Jean Bart. seems overly complex—I think there's a few too many mdashes in that sentence.
    • In reference to the Truk raid, the line That raid not only inflicted heavy damage on Japanese aircraft and naval forces, but also proved to be a stunning blow to enemy morale. probably needs a cite other than DANFS (specifically the morale bit).
    • Is Hollandia (currently known as Jayapura) necessary? The lead of that article explains in detail the name changes for anyone who clicks the link.
    • In reference to the typhoon, unexpectedly found themselves in a fight for their lives sounds a bit melodramatic when it's revealed that the ship only had one sailor injured and a couple of planes lost. I'd say either add a line about the ships that were sunk and men killed and say that Massachusetts fared better, or just cut the "fight for their lives" bit.
      • Ironic that you would mention the this because I was compelled to trim that section due to above comments. It originally read as follows: On 18 December 1944 the ships of Task Force 38 unexpectedly found themselves in a fight for their lives when Typhoon Cobra overtook the force– seven fleet and six light carriers, eight battleships, 15 cruisers, and about 50 destroyers –during their attempt to refuel at sea. At the time the ships were operating about 300 miles (500 km) east of Luzon in the Philippine Sea. The carriers had just completed three days of heavy raids against Japanese airfields, suppressing enemy aircraft during the American amphibious operations against Mindoro in the Philippines. The task force rendezvoused with Captain Jasper T. Acuff and his fueling group 17 December with the intention of refueling all ships in the task force and replacing lost aircraft. Although the sea had been growing rougher all day, the nearby cyclonic disturbance gave relatively little warning of its approach. Each of the aircraft carriers and the fleet flagship USS New Jersey (BB-62) had weathermen aboard; despite this, none of these individuals or staffs were able to give Third Fleet due warning of the impending typhoon. On 18 December, the small but violent typhoon overtook the Task Force while many of the ships were attempting to refuel. Many of the ships were caught near the center of the storm and buffeted by extreme seas and hurricane force winds. Three destroyers, Hull, Monaghan, and Spence, capsized and sank with nearly all hands, while a cruiser, five aircraft carriers, and three destroyers suffered serious damage. Approximately 790 officers and men were lost or killed, with another 80 injured. Fires occurred in three carriers when planes broke loose in their hangars and some 146 planes on various ships were lost or damaged beyond economical repair by fires, impact damage, or by being swept overboard. At the time of the Typhoon Massachusetts was sailing with the Third Fleet's Task Group 38.1 and reported one injured sailor and two planes lost as a result of the Typhoon. This was deemed to be too much information, so I was asked to trim it. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's my suggestion as to what should be there:
          • On 18 December 1944 the ships of Task Force 38 unexpectedly found themselves in a fight for their lives when Typhoon Cobra overtook the force—seven fleet and six light carriers, eight battleships, 15 cruisers, and about 50 destroyers—during their attempt to refuel at sea. At the time the ships were operating about 300 miles (500 km) east of Luzon in the Philippine Sea. Although the sea had been growing rougher throughout the 17th, the nearby cyclonic disturbance gave relatively little warning of its approach. Each of the aircraft carriers and the fleet flagship USS New Jersey (BB-62) had weathermen aboard; despite this, none of these individuals or staffs were able to give Third Fleet due warning of the impending typhoon. On 18 December, the small but violent typhoon overtook the Task Force while many of the ships were attempting to refuel. Many of the ships were caught near the center of the storm and buffeted by extreme seas and hurricane force winds. Three destroyers, Hull, Monaghan, and Spence, capsized and sank with nearly all hands lost, while a cruiser, five aircraft carriers, and three destroyers suffered serious damage. Approximately 790 officers and men were lost or killed, with another 80 injured. Fires occurred in three carriers when planes broke loose in their hangars and some 146 planes on various ships were lost or damaged beyond economical repair by fires, impact damage, or by being swept overboard. Massachusetts weathered the storm much better; she reported one injured sailor and two planes lost.
        • I've only trimmed a some of the less relevant information, but a good deal of it is, because the reader should have more context that what's there currently. Nick D, what do you think about my suggested version? Parsecboy (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that it's still too long, especially in comparison to the coverage of most other events Massachusetts was involved with. The article is about the ship, so coverage of events she was involved with should be tailored in accordance with the events impact on her. I think that the article's current two sentences on this is fine, and I've just struck out my comment above now it's addressed. Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Parsec, would that paragraph be of use in Typhoon Cobra (1944)? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • @ Ed - It might be useful, if the relevant information can be parsed into the article. Of course we shouldn't just plop it in the middle or anything.
              • I think this issue illustrates a larger problem; the article needs a lot more detail than it currently has. As Nick points out below, it neglects the most important aspect of the ship's participation in Leyte Gulf. I think this article would be well served by additional sub-division and significant expansion of the service history. I would recommend, for instance, a "Battle of Leyte Gulf" section; the island hopping in the central Pacific can probably be all in one section, and maybe a "Operations off Japan" section at the end. This ship had a very active career during the war, yet it's just about half as long as the article for SMS Seydlitz, which only took part in a handful of fleet advances during its career. I'm not trying to force the way I write articles (i.e., the formatting choices I've made) on anybody, but I do think readers need more context in order to get a good picture of what was going on and when, especially for the parts of her career when she was primarily employed as fleet defense. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • She spent most of April fighting off air attacks, while engaged In the operations at Okinawa, returning to the area in June, when she passed through the eye of a typhoon with 100 kn (120 mph; 190 km/h) winds on 5 June. is jumbled up and I can't tell exactly where to split the sentences. Also, was there any damage done to the ship/casualties from the typhoon?
  • Once these (and some of the other things pointed out above) are fixed, I'll be happy to support. Nice work everybody! Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The references rely far too much on DANFS and Navy historical sources. I have brought this issue up before with some of the Iowa articles and find it hard to believe that there are not more book references that can be found to support battleships. I could understand an 80' yard patrol boat not having book sources but not for ships that were considered capital ships. While it's not a requirement, I don't think ship articles going for A Class or higher should have text from DANFS included. --Brad (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tom, the book I'd recommend for this would be Garzke, William H.; Dulin, Robert O. (1976). Battleships: United States battleships in World War II. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0870210998. OCLC 2414211.. I've never seen it, but I have the other two in the series, and those are extremely detailed, both in design histories and ship careers. From what the others cover, I assume that it covers the two North Carolinas, the four South Dakotas, the six Iowas, and the five Montanas. I don't have access to it in a library at the moment, though that will change when I go to college (I would just need time to write, which may not happen); would you happen to have a copy in a library near you? (check using the OCLC link above) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I spent most of Tuesday going to the libraries around town, and largely struck out for Massachusetts on both the micro and macro level. El Paso has too much of an army history to have a large navy collection; even the special collection departments were of no use (note that due to summer time scheduling and the ongoing construction for Tier 1 status I am unable to gain access to special collections at UTEP until next week at the earliest). I was expecting an oppose on the DANFS citation grounds, to which I counter that this is a RS as far as Wikipedia is concerned and the article is not exclusively reliant on the DANFS cites. As to Brad's comment on Battleships: there are a number of books out there that cover battleships, but we are talking about individual battleship histories. Their is a fundamental difference between the two; its like looking for books and the civil war and looking for books on cover operation conducted by Union troops from State X. The info is there, but the more specific the information required the less apt is to be readily available in the qualities needed. I want to make it clear that I do understand what you are saying and I do believe that we need to ween ourselves off of the internet for these ships, but that is only going to work if we have a readily available pool of alternative sources to go to, and at the moment I have no such pool here. Ed, UTEP does have that book, but its currently just beyond my grasp; I would need at least four more days to get to it, and even if I can get to it I start school Monday and would have to balance school with the work load in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sucks. I am about to go from balancing work, tennis and wiki to balancing college, work and wiki; school starts on Monday for me as well. I'm not sure if I will have the necessary time to make a trip to Marquette's library—it's not in my university's library, of course, making my car-less life difficult—and add the necessary information and citations. If I do, however, I'm sure you'll notice on your watchlist. ;-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This article provides a good example of DANFS' limitations. DANFS coverage of the ship's role in the Battle of Leyte Gulf, which has been incorporated into the article almost word for word is "While part of TG 38.3 she took part in the Battle for Leyte Gulf 22 to 27 October, during which planes from her group sank four Japanese carriers off Cape Engano". While factually correct, this doesn't mention the fact that the four carriers were a bait which the Japanese successfully used to lure the fast carrier force (including its escorting fast battleships) away from Leyte Gulf, enabling the main body of the Japanese fleet to come dangerously close to attacking the amphibious transports at Leyte. When this was realised Admiral Halsey was forced to turn his battleship force (including Massachusetts) south as they approached gun range of the Japanese carrier force, and dash for Leyte. As such, the key factor in Massachusetts' role in the battle wasn't that she supported carriers, but that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact that this well-known and serious mistake has been left out of DANFS shows why it's not a sufficient source in isolation. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Please give time in civilian fashion. This is no report for the US Navy, but a wikipedia article for mostly civilians.
  • Why is the USS Massachussets firing after it disabled the main turret of Jean Bart? The French weren't really the enemy and this damage to docks and merchantships does it mean civilians were killed because some officers didn't realize they had knocked out the enemy? Also it's a massive waste of ammunition and the battleship was almost defenceless after this incident. Why such a wasteful use of resources far away from resupply?
  • Why is the battle with the French given in detail and the other engagements not?
  • What does mostly unaltered mean? She was pulled by a tug boat and used for spare parts so there must be equipment missing.


  • I think that there's a lot more detail on this ship that can profitably be presented about her service in the Pacific. I'd accept this level of detail if no other sources were available, but trawling through Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939-45 ought to quite profitable. Just be sure to get the third edition. Garzke and Duilin have been also suggested, but might I remind y'all that we're not generally limited to books in our local libraries. Inter-library Loan is normally free and you can usually get the book if it's anywhere in the US.
  • Two weeks later, she bombarded the industrial complex at Hamamatsu before she returned to blast Kamaishi on 9 August. Please replace "blast" with "shell" or something a little more professional sounding. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:47, 10 September 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.
  1. ^ Yule & Woolner, The Collins Class Submarine Story, p. 48
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment/2009&oldid=408842348"