Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Brandenburg

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

---

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

SMS Brandenburg

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Brandenburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/SMS Brandenburg/archive1

Another recent overhaul of an old German battleship article originally written several years ago. This one was the first ocean-going battleship built by the German Empire, and so didn't see any significant action. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Peacemaker67

This article is in very good shape. I have a few comments/queries:

• in the lead, after German Navy, there is Navy, should probably be in lower case
  • Fixed
• suggest linking ship commissioning in the lead and body at first mention
  • Done
• draft in the body doesn't match the infobox
  • Fixed
• the full combat load displacement conversions in the body and infobox don't match
  • Fixed
• consistency between whether you put a period after division and squadron ordinals ie I Division in the lead and II. Division in the body, there are other examples
  • Should all be standardized now
• Kiel and Kattegat are overlinked
  • Fixed
• Augusta should be properly introduced as Kaiserin or whatever her title was, and linked
  • Good idea
• what is a hamper? link?
  • Linked to the wiktionary definition
• should Baltic cruiser division have initial caps? Assuming it was the title of a division rather then just a descriptor
  • No, the title would have been the IV Scouting Group, if I remember correctly.
• references are all reliable specialist naval books

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Support from Anotherclown

• All tool checks ok (no dabs, external links ok, no repeat links, no issues with ref consolidation, etc), Earwig reveals no issues with close paraphrase or copyviolations [1] (no action req'd).
• Prose here is a little repetitive: "The next day, while she was in Kiel, Czar Nicholas II of Russia inspected Brandenburg while he..." ("while she" followed by "while he"). Its a minor nitpick but you might consider rewording (suggestion only).
  • Good idea, I've reworded it.
• "...for use as a distillation..." - what were they destilling? Water? Booze? If known it could possibly be clarified (very minor point though).
  • Yes, water - clarified in the text
• Otherwise this looks fine to me and I couldn't see any issues following a complete read through. Anotherclown (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Support from Llammakey

• Would link the following in text: knot, nautical mile, draft, launched, Brandenburg Wilhelm II (would also mention his title since you have Prince Heinrich and the Swedish king later in the text), Prince Heinrich, sister ship, conning tower, superstructure, grounding, broken up
  • Linked all, though Kaiser Wilhelm II is linked and introduced the first time he's mentioned, as is Heinrich and sister ship
• Abbreviate 11 inch since the cm is already abbreviated or alternatively, hyphenate, since it's an adjective
  • Done
• Indian Ocean is linked, but Atlantic is not, nor is the Baltic Sea - would suggest unlinking it to be consistent
  • Done
• Aside from these suggestions, looks good. Llammakey (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Support from Vami_IV

I made a single edit to a section title I thought was needed. I've made comparisons to similar German battleships that are Featured, and I think that this passes muster. –Vami_IV✠ 01:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

comments from auntieruth

• ...which increased parliamentary resistance to further increases in naval budgets; this led to an initial rejection of funds for the first armored cruiser, Fürst Bismarck. Admirals Eduard von Knorr and Hans von Koester criticized the comment, forcing Hollmann to publicly apologize this portion of sentence is very confusing. Actually the whole sentence is.
• link Barbettes
  • Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• I made a couple of minor edits [here] and [here]. auntieruth (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review from AustralianRupert

Had a look at the images, but I am by no means an expert. I have a couple of queries: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• "File:S.M. Linienschiff Brandenburg.jpg": can an English description be added to the Commons page for this? Also, the source seems a bit indistinct. Is it a book? If so, who is the author, publisher etc?
  • Expanded the caption - yes, it's a book, but I'm not sure which one. I'd assume this one, since the year matches, but I'm not sure.
• "File:SMS Brandenburg (1891).jpg": can the title of the source be translated?
  • Added
• "File:Contemporary map of Tsingtau and the Shandong Peninsula.png": same as above, also do we know what its status in Germany is? (not a warstoper, though)
  • Added - though I'm not exactly sure the status in Germany is what's relevant. It was published in Shandong, and I have no idea what happened to copyrights in former colonies in China. It could very well be PD, but I haven't the foggiest.
    • Shouldn't be a drama, as it appears to be PD-US. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• "File:SMS Brandenburg NH 88644.tiff": the source link on this image seems to go to a different photo [2]?  Done
  • I fixed the link above but unsure about the rest. Anotherclown (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, AC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks for taking care of that one, AC. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Thanks for those changes. Pretty sure the images should be ok now, but happy if someone with more knowledge in this area wants to take a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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