Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Baden


 * 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.

Promoted EyeSerene talk 10:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

SMS Baden (1915)

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

The last German battleship completed by the Imperial Navy, it was also the only ship prevented from sinking at Scapa Flow. The British used it for gunnery trials before sinking her in 1921. Thanks in advance to all reviewers who take the time to evaluate the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments This article is in good shape, but is lacking details:
 * Did the German navy really own and manage its own shipyards? This it what's implied by "she was the last battleship completed by the Kaiserliche Marine"
 * Yes, there was the Kaiserliche Werft Wilhelmshaven, Kaiserliche Werft Danzig, and Kaiserliche Werft Kiel, though the ship was built at the Schichau-Werke. Would changing "by" to "for" clear that up?
 * There's almost nothing specifically about this ship in the 'Advance of 23 April 1918', 'Wilhelmshaven Mutiny' sections - at very least these need to be greatly trimmed to shorter summaries
 * I trimmed some details from both sections, but some of it can't be removed. For instance, the whole first paragraph of the 23 April section isn't about the ship, but it's necessary to set up why the fleet put to sea. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where was Baden stationed when the High Seas fleet wasn't at sea?
 * I haven't seen anything about this yet, but this book is going to be released on the 22nd, and it should have that information in it (based on the first volume of the pair). Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the book about where the ship was based. When the ship was in the North Sea it would have been either Wilhelmshaven or Cuxhaven, but I haven't seen anything specifically about where III Squadron spent most of its time. Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When did she arrive at Invergordon? (and why was she sent there?)
 * I haven't seen a date (or even month) for the arrival, the article in Warship 2007 is the only thing I've seen that discusses the post-Scapa fate of the ship, and it doesn't have a date. As for why, Invergordon was a major naval base with better facilities than Scapa or Rosyth. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How did the British acquire the legal right to pull Baden apart and then use her for target practice? - did they receive the ship under the peace treaty?
 * Not specifically, but Article 184 renounces Germany's ownership of the vessel, and since the ship was in Britain's possession, and as Honoré de Balzac would say, possession is nine tenths of the law. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Footnotes 1 and 5 need references
 * Do I really need a reference for the definition of Ersatz? That the ship was a replacement for the old Worth is also cited in the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit surprised that File:Salvage at Scapa Flow.jpg isn't used Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That image is quite small and hard to make out. Hopefully Staff's book will have that image in it so I can scan and overwrite the current version. I did add File:SMS Baden towed from Scapa.jpg, which, though also small and grainy, at least has the virtues of being more of a dramatic shot. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The book doesn't have the same photo. Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * no dab links (no action required);
 * no issues with ext links (no action required);
 * images seem appropriately licenced (no action required);
 * only one of the images appears to have alt text, could it be added to the others? (note, this is a suggestion, not a requirement);
 * Added. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * is "Wilhelmshaven Mutiny" a proper noun, or an improper noun? The article itself seems to treat it as an improper noun (hence mutiny is not capitalised), thus please consider whether or not you should capitalise Mutiny in the heading;
 * Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * some of the ISBNs in the References section have hyphens but others don't;
 * Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * the year ranges in the titles in the References sections should have endashes, e.g. Herwig, The NY Times, Schwartz and Weir;
 * Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In the short notes you have "Preston", but shouldn't this actually be "Schleihauf", as the author who is contributing a chapter in the Preston work? AustralianRupert (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sure why I had done it that way in the first place. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * I don't like use of standard displacement and full combat load, although I understand that you may have had some objections during earlier FACs to the proper terminology. Deep load is defined in the displacement article, IIRC.
 * I'm not quite clear what you mean. Are you unhappy with the word choice (i.e., "standard" displacement was standardized at the WNC and thus anachronistic?) Can you clarify for me please? Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the anachronism bugs me, although normal load raises its own questions.
 * How about this solution? That avoids "standard" displacement and also explains a bit for the average reader. Parsecboy (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That works.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Provide conversions for the shp figures in the main body.
 * Done. Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Although implied that Baden sailed in the Advance paragraph, it's probably best to explicitly mention it.
 * Done. Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * pull it aground? Who did the pulling? I rather think that you meant to say "ran it aground".
 * Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gunnery training or tests?
 * Where are you talking about? Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This bit: In January 1921 the first round of gunnery training was ordered. The gunners at HMS Excellent fired the new armor-piercing (AP) shells that had been introduced after the Battle of Jutland. This round of tests was used to determine the most efficient ratio of explosives in the detonator caps; the shells fired at Jutland had a tendency to fragment when striking heavy armor rather than penetrate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that should be "tests" or similar. I've fixed that. Parsecboy (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Link monitor for those unfamiliar with the ship type.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm short on time; I'm going to copyedit for MOS and style things that might be a problem at FAC, and I'd appreciate it if someone else can fix the obvious stuff like missing periods and weird dates.
 * Comments On Kaiserliche Marine vs. German Imperial Navy ... the English term seemed to predominate in English sources, does anyone know different? - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose. There's too much to fix here, sorry ... no period at the end of the first paragraph, I fixed the misspelled "in", etc.  What I'm really hoping is that someone other than Parsecboy will step up and fix this; I think it hurts our output when we make writers think that they're supposed to be copyediting their own stuff.  That's not generally required by the publishing industry, because ideally, you want good writers to spend their time researching and writing, not obsessing over details, it's not efficient.  That's why I've been doing some copyediting at A-class reviews, but for a couple of months at least, I'm only going to have time to do it for the articles where someone has already gone through fixing the obvious problems, like missing periods and misspellings.  I'm opposing only because an article shouldn't be promoted with obvious punctuation and spelling errors, with no slap intended at Parsecboy at all, he's a great and productive writer. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to note, meine Frau, who is quite good at these things, is going to have a look at the article sometime in the next few days; she's helped in the past, though usually in a more "behind the scenes" manner. And no offense taken, Dank, I know you mean well. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like good stuff ... you're welcome to jump in any time, Parsecgirl. Also, the Guild of Copy Editors is going to be running a contest during July, I think I'll hop over and ask for help. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "almost grounded, ... though no major damage was done" sounds better to my non-nautical ear than "slightly grounded", but it's your call. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please track down the meter/metre inconsistencies. - Dank (push to talk) 00:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "the commander in chief of the fleet, Admiral Reinhard Scheer" doesn't sound quite right to me but you guys know better than I what you want to do with titles. If you keep it, it needs a comma after Scheer. - Dank (push to talk) 00:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm wait, it doesn't work to say that and then "... Reinhard Scheer—the Grand Admiral (Großadmiral) of the fleet—intended ..." four lines later, unless you say something like "newly appointed" to contrast, and even then I'd feel confused; I'd want to know if that was a promotion or demotion and what it meant if it's mentioned. Would it work for you to stick with just "Admiral" one place or the other? - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the "Schwartz48" ref from SMS Helgoland covers the point that the red flag was the red flag of the socialists, I'd prefer to see the ref and "of the Socialists" added. - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems like it could be more concise, but I'm afraid if I cut something I'll alter the meaning: "After the ship arrived in Invergordon, Baden was carefully examined by Royal Navy technicians. Naval engineers inspected the hull, including the screws, bilge keels, and rudders, to determine the water resistance of the hull form. The ship was found to have been approximately as efficient as the British Royal Sovereign-class battleships. The ship's armor system was extensively investigated ..." - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, now we're looking good; thanks for the work, Anotherclown, and I can support per the usual disclaimer after these issues are tackled. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits ... now supporting, although of course further edits by Parsecgirl or anyone else are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

*Comments Support
 * I've had a bit of a chop at copy editing some parts, so please review my changes and revert or tweak as required;
 * Your changes look fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You mention in the lead that: Baden "...was the last battleship completed for the Kaiserliche Marine; two of her sisters—Sachsen and Württemberg—were incomplete when the war ended." I don't see this in the body of the article anywhere, nor is it referenced;
 * This has now been added to the body. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a minor gripe but I think there may be a little overuse of headings, even if you deleted the 'Gunnery target' subheading and just made that part of the 'British service' heading that might be an improvement (just a suggestion though and I won't oppose on this basis);
 * I removed the "Gunnery target" header. My main concern in using headings is to avoid walls of text by subdividing as I see necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. Looks fine to me now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Overall, a good article which I am happy to support once a final copy edit is done, per Dank's comments. Anotherclown (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Have struck most of my comments now, just waiting for that copy edit. BTW Nate you're lucky, my wife hates Wiki... in fact I have to deploy just to use it in peace now (when the welfare computers are working that is)! Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work, looks like everything has been taken care of. Changing to support. Anotherclown (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2010 (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.