Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse


 * 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 MilHistBot (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another entry in the seemingly endless line of German battleships - and you thought we were finished, didn't you? Anyway, this ship had a fairly uneventful peacetime career and she saw no action during WWI. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review the article on its way to an eventual FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments
 * Consistency needed: sister-ship, sister ship
 * Don't know why I did that - all standardized to "sister ship"
 * I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always, Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments
 * Footnote a: the German spelling differs because of the practice to spell ship names in capital letters. As there is no capital ß, SS is used. Some sources, (e.g. Gröner) use lower cases with ss rather than ß. German orthography was not standardized until some time later, though. Both versions are more or less correct.
 * Design section: the 1pounders listed in the infobox are omitted. BTW are those the "tertiary battery" mentioned further down or does this refer to the 8.8cm guns? The class-article doesn't help either, referring to the 1pounders as "machine guns".
 * Fixed and/or clarified.
 * Service history: Raeder was "a" watch officer, not "the" watch officer. There were several, and he was too junior to be 2iC.
 * A good distinction to make, thanks.
 * "German Bight" might be a good candidate for linking
 * Added
 * "gunnery drills": I would understand "Schießübungen" as target practice rather than practicing the handling of the guns, which could be done in port or elsewhere
 * I'd use the two (gunnery drills and target practice) as synonyms - one of course cannot practice gunnery skills simply by handling the guns.
 * 1904 maneuvers: it's not clear from HRS that those landing forces where from IX Corps. It only says they joined the parade in Altona. Since Prince Heinrich later thanked his officers and men for their splendid performance on both occasions, I would assume that the landing forces consisted mainly of Seebataillon and landing parties from the crew of the ships, navy personnel in any case.
 * Does not "Auch der nächste Übungsabschnitt sah wieder eine Zusammenarbeit von Armee und Flotte, diesmal bei den Kaisermanövern des Garde- und des IX. Armeekorps." state that the Army and Fleet conducted joint maneuvers (and also imply that the earlier maneuvers before Altona were joint operations?)
 * ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always. Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments  -- just a placeholder, will aim to review this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Copyedited as usual so I'm happy with prose now if you are too.
 * Structure and level of detail seem fine.
 * References look good formatting- and reliability-wise.
 * Image licensing seems fine.


 * Comments Support
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * External links check out (no action req'd).
 * Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
 * Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd).
 * Captions look fine (no actions req'd).
 * A few duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
 * Brandenburg-class battleship
 * Kaiser Wilhelm Canal
 * Deutschland battleship
 * All removed, guess I forgot to check this before :)
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
 * The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (no action req'd)
 * Repetitive prose here: "The ships were readied for war very slowly, and they were not ready..." (readied and ready). Perhaps reword one?
 * Changed the first one to "prepared"
 * "He initially planned to launch a major amphibious assault on Windau..." perhaps add against which force this would have been conducted (Russians?)
 * Good idea
 * This sentence appears very abruptly: "According to Article 181 of the Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28 June 1919, Germany was permitted to retain only six..." Perhaps add that it was signed after Germany's defeat or something to add context.
 * See how it reads now.
 * In the ref list: "German Naval Manoeuvres" and "The British and German Fleets" are they OCLCs or ISSNs available for these works (perhaps check Worldcat.org)?
 * Both added
 * Otherwise looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Support: I made a couple of tweaks, but not a lot stood out to me. I only have a cuple of nitpicks, but as I will be offline for the next three or so weeks after tomorrow, I'm happy to support for A-class in its current state. These are my comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "File:High Seas Fleet.png" is lacking author and date information. If this is not known/stated, I'd suggest saying "1916 or before" and "Author not stated at source";
 * the crew of 658-687 appears in the infobox, but does not appear to be discussed in the main body;
 * is there a citation that could be added for Footnote d?
 * in the References, compare "Amherst, New York" to "Osceola, WI".
 * Otherwise, another quality article. Well done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:26, 25 July 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. 