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

Wittelsbach-class battleship

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This is another entry in the series of articles on German battleships; these were the first vessels built under the direction of Alfred von Tirpitz, though they were repeats in many respects of the earlier Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship. They were outdated by the outbreak of World War I and saw limited duty in the North and Baltic Seas before being withdrawn from service in early 1916. This article passed a Milhist A-class review in April (here). Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
I reviewed this article at Milhist ACR, and with one exception, I believe it meets the FA criteria. The area I think is lacking is the structure/flow in the Design section. I suggest the following changes: That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All good up to "... the chief constructor." Put a para break here.
 * Done
 * Delete the next sentence, as it is covered in the first sentence of the third para, which is the right place for the statement
 * I've reworked the whole section based in part on this, and some redundancy about the KCA-related changes - see how it reads to you now.
 * in the second para, talk only about the various things that were considered, not the things that actually were done, drop "Although" from the new first sentence of this para, and move the link to Kaiser Friedrich III class to the sentence beginning "Konteradmiral..."
 * See above
 * in the third para, cover all the actual "as-built" differences between the previous class and this, including the decision on the secondary guns proposal, additional TT, the Krupp cemented armor (talk about this in one sentence with the improved defensive capabilities and more extensive belt) and the resultant weight saving, the more powerful engines/increased power and speed, and the deck differences
 * As above
 * then a fourth para, along these lines "In summary, the Wittelsbach design represented incremental improvements over the Kaiser Friedrich III class. The incremental nature of the changes resulted in two classes of battleships that were in most important respects identical, providing the German fleet with a tactically homogeneous group of ten battleships.
 * Also reworked - I think this works better earlier, when discussing the incremental changes to the armament.
 * Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice work, significantly better than my suggestions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Dank
Image review
 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. I skipped the 3-paragraph section that PM is covering. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support
Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "The Wittelsbach design incorporated incremental improvements ... protected by a more extensive armored belt. ... received more powerful engines and were slightly faster" - isn't this the same thing as the para right above it? Or is this some additional change late in the design stage? Shouldn't this para start with "They also differed from..."
 * I've rewritten this section based on your and PM's comments - see how it reads now
 * "moderate seas. The ships..." para split here, two different topics.
 * Done
 * "were manually operated.[12][14] The ships' gun armament" and here.
 * Done
 * "The entire length of belt was backed by 100 mm of teak planking" as additional armor? or some other reason?
 * Good question - I've never seen an explanation for why teak was retained in the hulls of ships of the era - my assumption is that the early steels (up to the adoption of KC steel with these ships) were brittle and the teak was kept to add a measure of flexibility to contain spalling (which was the point of the KC process - face hardening the steel but retaining the greater flexibility of non-hardened steel to reduce spalling).
 * I've not seen a good reason either, but I'm fairly certain that it has something to do with helping to get the armor plates mounted as it's not used anywhere but behind the main armor belt. Maybe as a smooth backing for the plates to be installed against?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "launched in 1867. The other" - para break.
 * I don't think one is needed here.
 * Thanks Maury. Parsecboy (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking good! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * Formats:
 * Ref 31: it would be helpful to include in the citation that the two sections are within Part V of the Treaty as shown in the Wikisource link
 * Good idea, thanks Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, no format issues

Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Quality/reliability: no issues – sources appear to meet the required FA criteria

Comments Support by CPA-5
That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the infobox "12,798 t (12,596 long tons)" Link both tonnes.
 * Done
 * Link admiral.
 * Done
 * Is there a link for the Naval Law of 1898?
 * Added
 * the new ships' defensive capabilities.[5][6][2] Reorder the refs here.
 * Fixed
 * to displace 11,774 metric tons (11,588 long tons) with Link both tonnes.
 * Done
 * Pipe German Navy to the Imperial German Navy.
 * Done
 * that each produced 230 kilowatts (310 PS) at 74 volts Link PS.
 * This is already linked in the metric horsepower figure
 * These guns fired armor-piercing shells at a rate Link armor-piercing.
 * Done
 * making visits to mainland Spain, the Canary Islands, and the Azores Add Portugal here.
 * Done
 * Pipe both German in the lead and Germany in the body to the German Empire.
 * Done
 * Link Treaty of Versailles.
 * Done
 * used as a training ship in an effort to modernize Remove "in an effort".
 * Done
 * The other ships' peacetime careers generally consisted of routine fleet Add a "the" before "routine"
 * Done
 * the joint Army–Navy attack on I think we're using the wrong hyphen here. I believe we should not use a dash here.
 * Removed
 * the ships were reduced to training ships with the exception of Mecklenburg Remove "with the exception of" and replace it with "except for".
 * Done
 * Zähringen was initially used as a storage I think we can remove the "a" here.
 * No, that work work here - "used as storage hulk" doesn't make grammatical sense.
 * Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to change your header to support if you're satisfied.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, and I just did. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  15:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)