Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Helgoland

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

SMS Helgoland[edit]

Promoted Woody (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)
Toolbox

Another day, another German battleship, eh? That and we can't let the bloody birdfarms get ahead, can we? But seriously, I wrote this article over the past couple of months, and it passed GA a few days ago. It incorporates a good amount of detail from Seaman Richard Stumpf's diary, a sailor who served aboard the ship during the war. I look forward to all comments that help me prepare this article for an eventual FAC. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Conversions needed for displacement in the infobox
  • Be sure to use the adjectival form (with the hyphen) for 12-inch, etc.
  • Capitalize and link Kiel Canal.
  • What's a flak gun?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything is done except for the 12-inch. Do you want me or Parsec to go through and change all the "12 in" to "12-inch"? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I've got all of these. However, the convert template apparently cannot handle the "abbr=on" and "adj=on" parameters at the same time, so I've removed most of them. Thanks for helping out, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So I've been told here by Tony that when the units are abbreviated, we don't use hyphens for adjectives. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment - another source is needed for "According to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, all four Helgoland-class battleships were disarmed and surrendered as prizes of war to the Allies as replacements for the ships scuttled in Scapa Flow" -- the treaty says that this was supposed to happen, but another source needs to confirm that it did, indeed, occur. (note that I am not disputing this, just pointing it out) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pointing that out. I've added a ref to confirm that they were in fact handed over. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, and if you'd prefer, I can just make edits and you can revert at will. Be aware that my FAC experience with ships is limited, and I'm not here to "make waves"; if you guys like to do things a certain way at FAC, that's fine. My goal is to give a broader perspective that may or may not be helpful.

Added later: I'm aware that reviewing and reviewers don't always have a positive impact on the writing process, and I don't want to be part of the problem, so I'd prefer to only do pre-FAC reviews when the editors say they have some interest in FAC, as is the case for this article. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't German Imperial Navy be more accessible to an English-speaking audience in the first sentence than Kaiserliche Marine? The German term could be introduced below the introduction, I think. [Later addition ... I'm only getting about 15K ghits on "Kaiserliche Marine" when I restrict to English sources, so I believe the FAC reviewers will want to see German Imperial Navy first. 04:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)]
  • Most readers are interested in who/what/where/when before they're interested in design improvements, so I would move the second sentence down, "Helgoland's design represented ...". Since this is headed to FAC, a third paragraph would be customary in the introduction; perhaps that could start its own paragraph. (More to come) - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC) [Later addition ... my thinking here may reflect a journalistic bias not shared by FAC reviewers. I'm not positive. 04:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)][reply]
  • Although it's unusual to link all or part of the title in the first sentence, I think it would be both clearer and less intrusive to link SMS than to have a note that the reader has to click on. I've bolded SMS in the lead at Kaiserliche Marine so that that link will serve well as a quick definition of the acronym. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created a redirect from Military History Museum of the Bundeswehr to Militärhistorisches Museum der Bundeswehr, and I'd recommend using the former instead of the latter in the lead. My guess is that English sources tend to say "Kaiser-class" rather than "Emperor-class", so it makes sense to keep the German, but names of museums are probably going to be translated in most English-language sources. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to remove some of the commas; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • General rule on "tightness": don't worry about deleting individual words just to make it shorter, but if very little meaning is lost when you get rid of a string of words, then rewrite it. Example: I changed (paraphrasing) "Fitting-out, consisting of A, B, and other things, ..." to "Fitting-out, including A and B, ..."
  • Capitalization was probably wrong in the target article title Jade Estuary, now fixed. 19:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Some reviewers prefer all sections to have at least some text (the problem here is SMS_Helgoland#Actions in the North Sea), but it seems clear enough to me, and there's no harm in leaving it alone unless/until someone complains. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure reviewers are going to ask that you be consistent with the initial "0" in "At 06:20", "At 5:00", etc. Some may ask you to link the first occurrence to 24-hour clock, although I don't think it's necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 16:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a ton Dank, your review is really helpful. I've had some personal stuff in real life, so it might take me a bit to get to these, but everything looks good so far. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's great. Okay for me to make the edits myself? You're welcome to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay done, and I'll make edits as I go. This article's intro says "Helgoland's design represented an incremental improvement over the preceding Nassau class ...", but Helgoland class battleship's intro says "The design was a significant improvement over the previous Nassau-class ships; they had a larger main battery—30.5 cm (12.0 in) main guns instead of the 28 cm (11 in) weapons mounted on the earlier vessels—and an improved propulsion system." These statements don't seem to me to sync up. If "significant" is a good description, then that sentence would work well in the intro of this article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both "Admiral Ingenohl" and "von Ingenohl" are fine, "von" is just an honorific, but we're less likely to encounter resistance if you're consistent about whether to include the "von". I made the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. People keep using the sclass template, I guess to help them get the orthography right, except that the template generally gets it wrong: it's Queen-Elizabeth-class battleships, not Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Would it be simpler to encourage people to stop using the template or fix it? I'm not a template guy. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that is where you are wrong, there is no - in between Queen and Elizabeth in that ship's name. The template is actually correct and you won't get people to stop using the template. -MBK004 18:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's see what response we get at WT:MOS#Hyphen question, since this editor wants this article to pass FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Friedman (U.S. Battleships) doesn't have this orthography question to deal with, btw, he consistently writes "the North Carolinas" for "the North-Carolina-class battleships". I expect most people who might respond at MOS will want to follow Chicago (AP Stylebook is silent on this hyphen question, on pp. 359-360) and won't care much what battleship authors like ... but I could be wrong, I don't care much, and I'll happily do whatever gets it through FAC, if that's where the article editors are headed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, although there were several opinions, in the end we didn't have any objection to MBK's {{sclass|Queen Elizabeth|battleship|2}}, which produces Queen Elizabeth-class battleship. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you put the metric units first and sometimes second; it doesn't bother me but you may be asked to be consistent at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 01:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I usually put metric first since it's a German-topic article and they use metric. In some cases, like the 15 inch shell from either Barham or Valiant, their guns were measured in inches, not centimeters (it'd actually be 38.1 cm, but this is needlessly accurate) so I reversed the order. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • FAC reviewers may want more consistency on this than you've got. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, we should use the official measurements, regardless of inconsistency or FAC reviewer preferences. If a ship has 15-inch (38 cm) and 88 mm (3.5-inch) guns (random numbers) they should be written as such, even though they are not consistent. Accuracy trumps consistency at this point, I feel. It's inaccurate to say the 'Helgoland' had 305 mm guns, because they were, in fact 12-inch guns.Cromdog (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, no, they were 30.5 cm, which comes out to 12.007874... inches. 12 inches comes out to 30.48 cm, so yes there is a valid reason for using specific figures first. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I totally agree, both that we should use what the guns were commonly called (whether 12-inch guns or 30.5 cm guns or whatever), and that if a FAC reviewer said we needed to change all these to metric, we should push back rather than acceding. - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • tons of coal ... metric tons? - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you referring to the 1250 mentioned in Stumpf's diary? He doesn't say specifically, but I'd be willing to bet it was metric tons. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Tons" is a word I don't use alone since it can mean 3 different things. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you think it would be more prudent to say "over 1,000 tons" since we can't say for certain which ton we're talking about, and in this case we wouldn't be as specific? Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's best to follow MOSNUM if you're headed for FAC, and MOSNUM says: "Use long ton or short ton and not just ton; these units have no symbol or abbreviation and are always spelled out. The tonne, 1000 kilograms, is officially known as the metric ton in the US. Whichever name is used, the symbol is t." So "tons" is out; "over 1,000 tonnes" would work. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the red flag flew above every capital ship" ... there's nothing in the article red flag that tells me what this means, although I can guess it was the flag of the mutineers. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was just the generic "red flag" of socialist revolutionaries. Is there not a mention of the socialist tilt of the mutineers? I thought I had included that, but then I am sometimes forgetful with these things...Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One image is in need of alt text, otherwise this looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support: I believe that this article meets the required criteria. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but please fix the broken link in the main infobox. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unable to see any issues remaining to handle. I'll Support it.Cromdog (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/SMS_Helgoland&oldid=1148412137"