Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Braunschweig-class battleship/archive1

Braunschweig-class battleship

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Another class of German battleships, most of these were out of front-line service by World War I, but one, Hessen, was at the Battle of Jutland in 1916 (Hessen also remained in service until 1960 or so, having served under 4 flags). The article passed a MILHIST A-class review in April 2019, so it should be in pretty good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
Par two Just to be sure I will have another look in the article. That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * outbreak of World War I in July 1914 prevented I do not think we need a "1914" here.
 * Removed
 * After the war, the five Braunschweig's were Shouldn't it be "Braunschweigs" instead of "Braunschweig's"?
 * Yeah, I don't know where that came from
 * Link both tonnes and long tons in both the infobox nor the body.
 * Done
 * Link full load in the body and the infobox.
 * Good catch
 * Link knots in the body and the infobox.
 * Done
 * Link PS in the body.
 * It is, but it's not abbreviated the first time - I suppose since "PS" isn't an obvious abbreviation for "metric horsepower", it's probably best to just not abbreviate it
 * Optional The ships' main armament was increased remove "the ships" with "their".
 * Works for me
 * at a muzzle velocity of 820 meters per second (2,700 ft/s) Link both m/s and ft/s here.
 * Done
 * for a maximum range of 16,900 metres (18,500 yd), while the British metres.
 * Fixed
 * lower range of 14,500 metres (15,900 yd) Same as above.
 * Fixed
 * for a maximum range of 9,090 metres (9,940 yd) Same as above.
 * Fixed
 * Our Kaiser here is overlinked.
 * Fixed
 * making visits to Spain, the Canary Islands, and the Azores Maybe mainland Spain? Because the Canary Islands are part of Spain too. And add Portugal after the Azores.
 * Done
 * Lothringen was to be reduced to reserve in July 1914 and Preussen I think we do not need a second 1914 in this paragraph.
 * Removed
 * Link Denmark, Norway, Spain and Serbia with the Kingdom of Serbia's article.
 * Linked Serbia, but the equivalent for Spain is Restoration (Spain), which seems a little WP:EGGy to me, and Norway and Denmark are both currently the same countries, which the MoS advises against linking
 * into a training ship, and on 20 August 1917 Remove 1917 here.
 * Done
 * Link Kiel in the body.
 * Done
 * Link Soviet Union in the body.
 * Done
 * In addition, the 17 cm guns Remove "In addition" and replace with "Also".
 * Done
 * were propelled by three shaft triple-expansion steam engines Missing hyphen between "three shaft".
 * Fixed
 * Germany had limited access to high quality coal Same as above needs a hyphen between high quality.
 * Done
 * introduced, in order to increase the burn rate Maybe remove "in order" here? It sounds better.
 * Done
 * apparent that the mine clearing had taken too long Needs a hyphen between mine clearing.
 * Done
 * replaced as flagship by the battleship You mean "as a flagship"?
 * No, there's no article needed there (and "a" would be the wrong one in any event)
 * in poor condition and in dire need Don't think that the second "in" is not necenssarry?
 * No, "in poor condition and dire need" wouldn't work, IMO
 * Preussen, Lothringen, and Hessen continued on as guard ships in the Baltic Maybe remove "on" here.
 * Done
 * Thanks again, CPA Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey BB I just made some more comments here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not a god or a dictator to not listen to my fellow editors like you BB who have opinions especially in my non-English native ears. It looks great here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
I reviewed this at Milhist ACR, and went through it with a fine-tooth comb then. I have a few comments: More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC) That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Previous designs had carried the 24 cm guns in the superstructure" in what, multiple gun turrets or casemates?
 * in general, the decision of the design staff about the set-up of the secondary battery needs better explanation at this point. Was the smaller battery on the main deck in casemates or turrets? How was it to be laid out? I realise this is explained later, but given it is being discussed here, it needs to be better explained.
 * See if how I've reworked it sounds good for you
 * repetition "as many countries' navies" and "many navies"
 * Fixed
 * "increasing the thickness of the armor protecting the secondary battery" this is the same question about the set-up of the secondary battery. Casemates?
 * Clarified
 * given PS and ihp are indistinguishable at this level, perhaps force or add kW as a conversion in the infobox?
 * Done
 * "12 in (30 cm) guns" it seems weird to use the reverse conversion just for these foreign guns
 * Good point
 * depress down is unnecessary, depress will do
 * Fixed
 * 1820 shells→1,820 shells
 * Fixed
 * go through and check all metres are meters
 * Fixed per CPA's comment above
 * any info available about the performance and range of the torpedoes?
 * casemated guns had gunshields?
 * Yeah, they rotated with the gun in the casemate
 * you could put the conning tower armour in the infobox
 * Good idea
 * "but they saw no action"→"but it saw no action" as we are talking about the squadron here
 * Good catch
 * "but they saw no action"→"but it saw no action" as we are talking about the squadron here
 * Good catch
 * add a location for Philbin?
 * Good catch, added
 * do Koop & Schmolke and Weir not add anything?
 * I haven't read Koop & Schmolke - it's not widely available, but I suspect it would be useful for those who can get a copy. Weir provides context on the building programs, government-industry relations, Imperial German politics, and such, that doesn't really belong in the article but might be of interest, so I figured it would be worth including in the further reading section.
 * Great job, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * Formats
 * ISBNs should be in a single uniform format (see Dodson 2014)
 * Fixed
 * Citations 18 and 23 refer to "Hildebrand, Röhr & Steinmetz Vol. 2", but in the references this is listed as Vol 3.
 * Good catch

Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Quality and reliability: The sources appear to be comprehensive, and to meet the required quality criteria.

Support Comments by Sturmvogel

 * Why are the main guns the only ones in the infobox to get a designation?
 * Good question
 * Several roundings for the conversions require fixing.
 * Fixed the torpedoes and the CT side armor - is there anything else?
 * 7 in (180 mm) and 8 in (200 mm) guns--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed
 * increased from four 24 cm (9.4 in) guns in previous designs, compared with the 30.5 cm guns used on many foreign ships. redundant
 * Removed
 * Hyphenate Marine type boilers
 * Done
 * Link cylindrical boilers to Scotch marine boilers
 * Done
 * Link funnel, metric horsepower, sec
 * The first two already are - what's "sec"?
 * What's unstable steering?
 * All Groner says is "Unstable steering caused an additional distance of .5nmi per hour to be run; this extra distance...explains the shorter range."
 * Strange, but hard to explain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a fair number of redundant conversions
 * Removed a few, not sure if I got them all
 * You converted the armament sizes in the lede, but that can be treated as a different thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest moving the bit about hydraulically operated turrets to two sentences previous, right in front of the turret designations.
 * How about where I put it?
 * Better, but it's still a subordinate clause. I think "hydraulically operated twin-gun turrets" reads better, but I'm sometimes idiosyncratic about such things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That works for me
 * The main battery had a total of 340 shells, Awkward, suggest something like "the ships carried a total of 340 shells, 85 per gun"
 * Works for me
 * 140 mm (5.5 in) forward and aft "fore and aft"?
 * Sure
 * extended from the fore to aft main battery turrets awkward Perhaps "extended between the fore and aft main-gun turrets"?
 * Done
 * Down to service history, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Link the headers in the table and guard ship
 * Done
 * Schmidt decided to withdraw his forces when it became apparent that the mine-clearing had taken too long, and there was not sufficient daylight left for the minelayer Deutschland to lay a minefield of its own. It's unclear here what the situation is. The Germans wanted to clear the Russian minefields so they could lay one of their own?
 * Yeah, they wanted to clear the Irben Strait (the western entrance to the gulf) and mine the path through Moon Sound (the northern entrance) - have clarified this
 * When these ships were disarmed weren't their guns reused by the Army?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's mentioned in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  13:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)