Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Kaiser Barbarossa


 * 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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Barbarossa

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another day, another German battleship article at ACR. This ship was a sister to the recently-reviewed SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse, and like her sister, she did not see combat during her career. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * Add the 1-pounder guns to the main body.
 * Added.
 * the emperor of Germany I believe that emperor should be capitalized as part of a proper noun.
 * Fixed.
 * We really do need a generic naval review article rather than just the US-specific one that you linked to here. But that's not really your problem.
 * Yeah, I removed the link for now since the USN one doesn't really make sense, but you're right, we do need a general one.
 * Your wording about the modernization/rudder repair was kinda confusing as I interpreted it to mean that the repairs took until Jan 05, which led me to double check the year. I'd suggest that you move the "lasted until Jan 05" bit to the end of the last sentence.
 * No, the modernization itself went through 1907 (see the para below).
 * What machine guns? The 1-pounders?
 * Clarified.
 * Watch for ampersand consistency.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed - thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments
 * Contruction section:


 * According to Gröner (German edition, p.37), B. was fitted with 4 Thornycroft-boilers and only six cylindrical ones.
 * I'm sure you're correct but I'll have to double-check later.
 * the power-plant (it's written as one word in the article, but as a non-native speaker, I dare not comment on that) was rated with 13949ihp, the 13000ihp are for the class as such.
 * 13949 was the figure reached on trials, the engines were designed for 13000 (hence what they were rated for) - I don't usually like to use trials data unless those are the only figures available, since they don't really demonstrate actual capability in many cases (for instance, the French and Italians greatly exaggerated their ships' speeds by running them without much of their equipment,including armament in some cases!). In the case of the German battlecruisers (including Blücher), they were roughly the same speed as their British counterparts, but in practice they were usually at least a couple knots slower due to a shortage of high-quality coal.
 * torpedo tubes diameter is in cm only while other measures are converted
 * Good catch.
 * top speed was 17.8kn, so RUSI probably gave a rounded figure
 * BTW, I took the liberty to fix the displacement error for the class, 11785 t = 11599 LT, which was then converted again from t to LT. Probably a copy&paste thing.
 * More than likely - thanks for fixing it.
 * Service section:


 * 'naval review' links to the US Naval Review.
 * Unfortunately there isn't a general article on the subject, just articles on the USN and RN reviews. I'll remove the link.
 * 'minor damage to her rudder': considering she spent more than a year in dry-dock, not so minor, I would say.
 * Removed.
 * Technically Germany did not capitulate, but asked for an armistice.
 * A good point.
 * ship-breaking would be worth a link, again.
 * Added.
 * ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ÄDA. Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments  -- looks pretty good to me, but will reserve judgement until the above points are resolved; in the meantime... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No dablinks, duplinks, or EL issues.
 * Copyedited as usual, pls let me know any issues.
 * Structure and level of detail seem fine.
 * Image licensing looks good to me; no alt text, but admittedly it's not a requirement.
 * Source reliability and formatting seem okay.
 * Thanks for checking these things Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the points raised earlier have been satisfactorily answered, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Support nothing to add or to suggest, well done. I am happy to see that HRS helped create the article MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Support one grammatical tweak in lead. Very nice. I suggest also the addition of a sentence about the ship's namesake. It's mentioned in the box, but not in the text. auntieruth (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "front-line service": I changed this to "frontline service". Cambridge Dictionaries lists both front-line and frontline as the adjective, but American dictionaries give just frontline. The American English influence, plus the tendency of words that are seen both with and without the hyphen to gravitate to the unhyphenated form, will probably give "frontline" the win over time. On top of that, we don't share the assumption of most publishers that Brits never read American English, Americans never read British English, and other Commonwealth readers need to learn someone else's English. On Wikipedia, words that look right to everyone have the advantage that people are less likely to "correct" them.
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I just did a image check to confirm it is ready to pass. Passing. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above 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. 