Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Kaiser-class battleship


 * 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

 * Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Well done. Still in the dark about the torpedoes, though; its seems a little odd (to me it does anyway) for a battleship with really big guns to have torpedoes in any respect. Any luck with this point? TomStar81 (Talk &bull; Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 02:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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


 * 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)


 * Comment
 * I saw a few redlinks in the article. Otherwise, it looks fine. Sumanch (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Redlinks are encouraged, see WP:REDLINK. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I'm happy. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk &bull; Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 01:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Thanks for your review and fixes, Joe. Actually, yes, I am hoping to eventually have a "High Seas Fleet" featured topic. It might take years to finish, but someday I'll get it done. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Support If you are going for FAC, you might also note the new requirement for WP:ALT  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Took the liberty of making a few copyedits but structure, detail, references and illustrations all look fine - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.