Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913)


 * 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 -- Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913)

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

After a bit of business in real life, I finally have time to get back to Wiki stuff, so here we are. The second of four König class battleships (though the third to grace a MILHIST ACR), Grosser Kurfürst was the second battleship in the German line at Jutland, and was heavily damaged in the battle. The ship had something of a record for accidents, including rammings, running aground, and torpedo and mine damage. Like her sisters, she was scuttled at Scapa Flow, but unlike her class-mates, was raised and broken up for scrap in the 1930s. I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring this article meets our high standards for A-class articles. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - she rammed Konig but had no damage? That's gotta be an unusual occurrence. Any more information on that?
 * Page numbers for the Campbell chapter in Conway's? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Page numbers added. And yeah, it is rather odd - all Staff says is "On 7 December she lightly rammed Konig, but was not damaged herself." In the section on Konig, he says "On 7 December, Konig grounded on Wilhelmshaven Roads, and the battleship immediately astern, Grosser Kurfurst, had insufficient room to stop and rammed Konig in the stern to starboard. There was slight flooding and after coming free the ship went to Wilhelmshaven Dockyard and was under repair..." Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. Wherever you think it's appropriate, I'd prefer we have the same note we had in König, since the German sources will have this spelling: " (or Großer Kurfürst) " - Dank (push to talk)
 * I'm surprised by the link to Prince-elector; the provisional name was Ersatz Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm, and I don't think Germans think of an office in the HRE when they hear the term, they're thinking of Frederick William I, Elector of Brandenburg (see the first paragraph of the article).  "Großer Kurfürst" redirects to this guy in the German Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk)
 * The four Konigs were all initially named for titles held by Wilhelm II - King (of Prussia), Crown Prince, Margrave, and Prince Elector.
 * Well ... interesting. I can't find anything that contradicts that, and what you say makes sense. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "September–October 1917": September and October 1917 - Dank (push to talk)
 * "After Germany's defeat in the war and the signing of the Armistice": After Germany's defeat and the signing of the Armistice - Dank (push to talk)
 * "The ships were ... reduced to skeleton crews": The ships were ... limited to skeleton crews - Dank (push to talk)
 * "The first combat operation in which the ship participated": The ship's first combat operation - Dank (push to talk)
 * "29 until 31 May": This may be fine, I'm not sure. AmEng guides recommend "May 29 to May 31", but we're going with military style on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "two week training cruise": hyphen - Dank (push to talk)
 * Note 2 should follow the first time given, 10:55. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Deutschland class pre-dreadnoughts": hyphen - Dank (push to talk)
 * "At 17:45 ... a minute later at 17:46" Delete any one of the 3 time elements. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Compare "Grosser Kurfürst was forced to shift fire from Princess Royal to the battleship Valiant, though by 18:16 she too had moved out of range." with "On 7 December, Grosser Kurfürst accidentally rammed her sister König, though she sustained no damage." It's not obvious enough which "she" is meant, in both sentences, although a perceptive reader could make reasonable guesses.  I'd go with "Valiant too had moved" and "sustained no damage when she accidentally". - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Grosser Kurfürst straddled Valiant four times and incorrectly claimed a hit on the ship": Grosser Kurfürst's shells straddled Valiant four times. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "between 10,000 to 18,000 yd": between 10,000 and 18,000 yd - Dank (push to talk)
 * "#2": No. 2 - Dank (push to talk)
 * More to come. - Dank (push to talk) 04:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "which allowed a significant quantity of water to enter the ship. Damage control teams managed to temporarily stop the flooding, by which time approximately 800 t (790 LT; 880 ST) of water had entered the ship.": Damage control teams managed to temporarily stop the flooding, after approximately 800 t (790 LT; 880 ST) of water had entered the ship. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "list" and "counter-flooding" need links. - Dank (push to talk)
 * List (watercraft) added but there's no article for counter-flooding (nor anything on Wiktionary as far as I can tell). Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then the question is whether a significant number of readers won't know what it means without an explanation; my guess is yes. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The remaining shells burst on impact and caused relatively minor damage": More hits were sustained, but these shells burst on impact and caused relatively minor damage. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "north-west": AmEng is "northwest" - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Damage was minimal and the ship proceeded to unit training in the Baltic. On the return to the North Sea on 4 March, however, she accidentally rammed Kronprinz.": Just one of the things I love about the new Chicago is that they take a stand on "however" at 5.207; until now, there's been a lot of hemming and hawing and pursing of the lips. Short version: use "however" if the context demands a ponderous word, or if you're using it adverbially to modify the word before it.  "Damage was minimal and the ship proceeded to unit training in the Baltic, but on the return to the North Sea on 4 March, she accidentally rammed Kronprinz." - Dank (push to talk)
 * Same here: "She struck a mine while maneuvering into firing position, however, ..." "But she struck a mine while maneuvering into firing position, ..." It's a myth that it's a bad idea to start a sentence with "but"; see Chicago 5.206. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Upon being informed of the situation, the Kaiser stated": When informed of the situation, the Kaiser stated, - Dank (push to talk)
 * "most of the High Seas Fleet ... were": most of the High Seas Fleet ships ... were - Dank (push to talk)
 * "the Allied fleet that was to escort": the Allied fleet that escorted. "Was to" can be an alternate form of the future-in-past tense, referring to an event in the future relative to the narrative before returning to the time of the narrative, or it can mean "was supposed to" or "was intended to".  So, it's out of place here. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Those comments were all from Nov. 27. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed everything you suggested, Dan, with the exception of a couple I replied to specifically. Thanks for taking your scalpel to the prose and fixing what needed it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now support. Less painful than a scalpel I hope. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I concur in that the name should be "SMS Großer Kurfürst (1913)" and add the foreignchar template. Example MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UE, titles should reflect what is commonly used in English-language sources, which commonly use the umlaut but very infrequently use the eszett. If memory serves me, the only English-language sources I've seen to use the eszett are Staff's book and Groner's (which is actually just a translation, so I'd say that's a bit of a stretch). Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the argument that English sources use the "ß" less frequently than the Umlaute "ä", "ü" and "ö", I have to take your word here, but the Germans named the ship SMS Großer Kurfürst. Note: Swiss German doesn't even have the "ß" in their alphabet. A capitalized Umlaut such as "Ä" is always spelled "Ae" in Switzerland. But it just isn't right in German German and hurts my eyes. Sorry but I can't get myself to cope with this. It is just inconsistent. You use the "ü" in Kurfürst but refrain from using the "ß" in Großer. I fail to see the logic here even if some English sources refrain from using the "ß". Again, I am looking at this from a consistency point of view and not from your sources point of view. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is new in Chicago, and surprising (to me): Chicago 11.12 says: "Foreign words, phrases or titles that occur in an English-language work must include any special characters that occur in the original language." OTOH, if we're reading the English sources rather than the German ones, my experience has been the same as Parsecboy's, and we've got WP:UE to contend with.  And AP Stylebook hasn't changed their position: no diacriticals (see "accent"). - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: I reviewed this for GA and believe that it is in pretty good shape. I had another look over it today and only found a small thing, which I changed myself. I therefore support, albeit pending the implementation of Dank's comments above. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - I've read over this twice and can find nothing to fault it. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support w/ Comments:
 * 3rd para of "Service History" uses 'enemy' which should be removed to keep the article neutral.
 * "the decidedly close call at Jutland" sounds a little encyclopedic to me. Could it be a "close battle" or a "close fight" instead?
 * The current cite system makes it unclear which "Campbell" ref you are citing each time. Is there some way to make it more clear with each individual ref? — Ed! (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. 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.