Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Kaiser Friedrich III


 * 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 HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

SMS Kaiser Friedrich III

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

It's been a little while since the last German battleship graced the Milhist ACR page, but seeing as this one's sister ships are all FAs, I thought it was time to get around to rewriting it. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, Parsecboy, nice work as usual. I have a few minor comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * inconsistent: " 13,000 metric horsepower (12,822 ihp; 9,561 kW)..." (in the body of the article) v. "13,000 PS (12,820 ihp; 9,560 kW)" (infobox)
 * Fixed the rounding error
 * (in the body) "twelve machine guns" --> should "1-pdr" be included here for consistency with the infobox?
 * Good idea
 * inconsistent: "She was scrapped in 1920" (in the lead) v. "Scrapped in 1919" (in the infobox)
 * Fixed
 * I think the images would be more visually appealing if the borders were cropped from: "File:Die Gartenlaube (1887) b 517.jpg", "File:S.M. Linienschiff Kaiser Friedrich III.jpg"
 * I'll have to address that later - am traveling for the holiday so I don't have access to my home system.
 * "a foray toward Gotland to catch Russian warships" --> "a foray toward Gotland to attack Russian warships"?
 * Sounds fine to me.
 * "Two days later, the fleet arrived off Gotland to show the German flag, and was back in Kiel by 30 December" --> was any action fought? If not, it is probably best to say so, given it seems they went there looking to engage the Russians?
 * Good idea - I've clarified that
 * in the References, is there an ISSN or OCLC (or similar) for the R.U.S.I. Journal?
 * Added
 * same as above for Notes on Naval Progress?
 * Added
 * "United States. Office of Naval Intelligence" --> is the full stop a typo here?
 * Yes, good catch
 * this seems inconsistent: "Ratingen, DE" v. "Bonn"
 * Fixed. Thanks for your very thorough review! Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always, Dan - everything looks good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC) This article is in fine shape, I have made a few minor tweaks and only have one minor quibble.
 * the infobox lists a range for the belt armor, but only the maximum is detailed in the body
 * Fixed, good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * File:S.M. Linienschiff Kaiser Friedrich III.jpg -- author's date of death?
 * Added.
 * File:Die Gartenlaube (1887) b 517.jpg -- ditto?
 * This one is tricky - the caption credits the photo to a "Th. Politzky", but I can't find anything on him. When I crop the border, I might have to upload it locally, since it is definitely PD in the US even without the date of death.
 * Actually, the illustration was just based on Politzky's photograph - there's a signature on the drawing itself that I can't make out, but it doesn't appear to be the same as the author of the article it came from. Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Kaiser Friedrich III..jpg -- link to source seems to need updating.
 * Replaced.
 * Thanks, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2016 (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.