Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Kronprinz


 * 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.

SMS Kronprinz (1914)

 * Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Yet another German battleship, this one was the fourth and final König class ship. She was undamaged at Jutland and fought the Russian battleship Tsarevitch during Operation Albion. She's also one of the three BBs still on the bottom of Scapa Flow. I wrote this article just the other day, it passed GA this morning, and I feel it's ready for A-class. Thanks to all who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: I reviewed this for GA and I feel that it meets the project's A class criteria. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good, but I am not seeing the name of the commander/captain (names of the officers would be nice, too). I'd also like to see more info in construction section: not technical specs, but why was the ship ordered, was there anything innovative in the construction, and such. Also, I am not familiar with the HMS Cardiff template; it needs to be disambiguated to HMS Cardiff (D58) somehow. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the name of the ship's captain or any officers anywhere; we generally only know them if they were particularly notable. For instance, SMS Von der Tann's captain at Jutland was Hans Zenker, who went on to serve as the CinC of the Reichsmarine after the war. As for officers, the only time I've ever seen someone other than the captain mentioned was in Richard Stumpf's diary.
 * There wasn't anything specifically innovative about this ship apart from her sisters. I usually keep most of the technical stuff on the class page - the ship articles should just have a short run-down of the technical stuff along with any unique information (see SMS Derfflinger for example). There just doesn't seem to have been anything about this vessel that was different from her sister ships. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment mostly A1, pretty good! Complaint about inflation. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notes: "Adjusted for inflation, Kronprinz cost $295,395,429 in 2009 dollars." which conversion measure did you use? I hope you used a capital goods measure.  Share of GDP won't work here, since it is German GDP in question.  I get quite ansty about this because inflation is hard, battleships aren't purchased with the same kind of money-over-time that say, sausages for eating by private individuals are.
 * I just used inflation. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd want to remove that. You're using CPI inflation on US dollars.  CPI measures stuff like a bundle of sausages, bread, milk and rent.  Battleships aren't bought by people buying sausages, milk, rent.  Fifelfoo (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Citations look good
 * Bibliography: Subtitles normally take a colon, not a semi-colon, was a semi-colon specifically used on the Title Page of the work? "Preston, Anthony (1972). Battleships of World War I; An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Battleships of all Nations, 1914–1918."
 * More than likely I forgot to hold shift when I typed it in. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bibliography: Was the volume number specifically part of the title? The page to check for this is the title page (not the fly page), "Staff, Gary (2010). German Battleships: 1914–1918 (Volume 2)."
 * It's actually German Battleships: 1914-1918 (2), but I got complaints at a FAC about it, and was told I should add the "Volume" to make it clear. But see here for the cover page. It's identical on the two following pages. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bibliography: ed would normally be Ed. or ed. here, "Sturton, Ian, ed (1987). Conway's All the World's Battleships: 1906 to the Present."
 * I don't know, I'm just using the cite book template, I'll ask them over there. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Citation: Sturton (1987) in the citations, if citing a named entry written by someone else, should actually be Foo, Bar, "German Battleships of Designation X" in Sturton (1987), pages. ?
 * How does that look now? Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Will get back to you about the rest shortly. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is good. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments (not urgent)
 * Someone recently has been changing "formally commissioned" to "commissioned"; that seems okay to me if it never or rarely happens that people consider the boat commissioned when it hasn't been. Otherwise, "formally commissioned" makes sense to me. - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've poked around and can't figure out whether we should write mark, gold mark, Gold Mark or Goldmark. It usually isn't italicized.  The name "gold mark" became more common during and after 1914, to distinguish it from the "paper mark", which is right on the edge of the time frame of the relevant paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AP and Chicago (and other guides too, though I don't claim to keep up) are tough on acronyms; AP says "avoid alphabet soup". It's okay to use them when everyone else does or when writing something out over and over would be tiresome.  I'm not going to take a position very often on individual words, unless I can find support one way or the other in a style guide; I'm just saying we should abbreviate less often than we do. - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're referring to AP and semi-AP - I used them because AP is a pretty common abbreviation for armor-piercing in naval literature. I'm fine with not abbreviating it though. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked many times (with no answer) where we're going to draw the line on anthropomorphic language. One reviewer laughed at the FAC for HMS Speedy; we're going to get more chuckles if we keep using language for ships that goes way beyond language that you'd use for a car.  (I'm talking here about "[The ship] claimed to have made one hit".  I'll do my best to defend the line wherever we draw it, but we need a line and some justification from sources for the line.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I rewrote this one and it won't be a problem at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LQ, we put the period outside the quote marks if it wasn't in the quoted material. (It wasn't in this case, I've got that book.) If anyone thinks that looks weird, I'll be happy to talk about where that comes from. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. I've always been told by the grammar nazis that punctuation always goes inside the quotation marks, but it always seemed odd to me if the question mark wasn't part of the quote, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved questions
 * I don't understand this part; when was it that Kronprinz stopped firing? "Between 20:00 and 20:30, Kronprinz and the other III Squadron battleships engaged the British 2nd Light Cruiser Squadron as well as the battleships of the Grand Fleet. Kronprinz attempted to find the range by observing the British muzzle flashes, but the worsening visibility prevented her gunners from acquiring a target. As a result, she held her fire in this period." - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kronprinz didn't fire. I meant engaged as in she trained her guns on the British ships, not that she opened fire. Is there a way to make that clearer? Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Try something with "trained her guns". - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I have read through this word for word and struggle to find any issues at all. IMO this is an excellent article, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 21:46, 19 October 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.