Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Zähringen


 * 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) 20:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

SMS Zähringen

 * Nominator(s): 

Another in the line of German battleships I've been working on - this one served in 3 German navies over the span of 40+ years, before ending up sunk as a blockship late in World War II. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 Comments Support from Indy beetle -Indy beetle (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The transition between the second and third paragraphs in the lede is confusing (both substance and grammar). I'd recommend something similar to the following: "By late 1915, crew shortages and the threat from British submarines forced the Kaiserliche Marine to withdraw older battleships from service, including the Wittelsbach class. [para break] Zähringen was relegated to the role of training ship before being converted into a target ship for torpedo training in 1917."
 * Works for me
 * "Zähringen's keel was laid on 21 November 1899, at Friedrich Krupp's Germaniawerft dockyard in Kiel. She was ordered under the contract name "E", as a new unit for the fleet." I think it makes more chronological sense for these two statements to be switched in order.
 * Good idea
 * "After the Russian battleship Slava attacked the Germans in the strait, forcing them to withdraw." This grammatically doesn't make sense.
 * Removed "after"
 * "The modification of the ship's propulsion system also proved to be a mistake, as the ship's speed was too low, and it hindered her maneuverability." Too low for what, exactly? For adequate maneuverability? Target practice purposes?
 * Hildebrand et. al. don't say, but I'd assume she was too slow to be an effective target (i.e., that she wasn't fast enough to be a challenging target)
 * "These experiences affected the conversion of Hessen, and neither were repeated" Would be helpful to specify "neither mistake was repeated" or similar.
 * Done
 * It would be helpful if the caption of the photo of Blitz specified that the ship served as the control vessel for Zähringen.
 * Good idea. Thanks Indy beetle. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments:
 * "Zähringen initially used as a training ship, and was converted into a target ship for" - I think you mean the period after it was removed from the line? If so, it should be "After its withdrawal, Zähringen was used as a training ship,..."
 * Fixed per Indy's comment above
 * "class battleships, but" - this is not a "but", you are moving onto an entirely new topic. That comma should be a period and the start of a new para.
 * The point was to juxtapose Hollmann's inability to secure stable funding with Tirpitz's success.
 * "six naval and six cylindrical" - I'm surprised that I have no idea what the difference would be. Is there an article you can link to that describes the difference between naval and cylindrical?
 * Linked the cylindrical boilers, but I'm not exactly sure on the naval boilers - they were manufactured by one of the government shipyards, but I've never seen a description of the boilers themselves. I'd assume they were also cylindrical boilers, but I don't know for sure (I think Gröner's point in differentiating the boilers was to identify the manufacturer, but again, I don't know for sure).
 * "Construction to 1904" - is there a particular reason you split these sections at 1904/05? There doesn't seem to be anything obvious in the text and they are a bit lopsided.
 * Mostly to balance the sections in terms of amount of content - splitting it chronologically in the middle would leave all of it save the last paragraph in the second subsection.
 * "returned to Bornholm that day.[23] Starting on 3 September" - para break
 * Done
 * "available for the operation" - what operation?
 * To provide the support the Army had requested
 * "that the Army was waging" - you don't have to say that
 * Removed
 * "with the operation. The Germans launched" - para break
 * Done
 * "Wilhelmshaven until 1926.[9] That year, the" - param break
 * See below
 * "subsidiary duties.[27] Zähringen" - para break
 * Done
 * "the United States Navy. Accordingly" - para break
 * This conflicts with the suggested break above at "Wilhelmshaven until 1926.[9] That year, the" - param break - I broke it where I thought it made most sense, let me know if that works for you.
 * "the conversion that year, " - remove this, we already know when it started
 * Reworded
 * "renamed Blitz.[36] Zähringen continued" - para break
 * Done
 * "The torpedo boat" - this should be higher in the text, perhaps as part of the description of the modifications
 * Done
 * "August 1942.[34] On 18 December 1944" - definitely para break here!
 * Disagree on this one - I don't see the value in 2- or 3- sentence paragraphs. To me, that breaks up the narrative.
 * Generally good; my only real concern is the mega-paragraphs made out of often unrelated sentences. Breaking these up into smaller and more focused statements will improve readability. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maury. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges
Will come soon. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  07:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "The Wittelsbachs were broadly similar to the Kaiser Friedrichs, carrying the same armament but with a more comprehensive armor layout" What is the usage of "comprehensive" here? Does it mean heavier (as in more complete in location) armor, or else does it mean more of the ship itself was armored?
 * The latter
 * "Zähringen was protected with Krupp armor. Her armored belt was 225 millimeters (8.9 in)" perhaps change this to:
 * "Zähringen had an armoed belt that was made of Krupp armor, and 225 millimeters (8.9 in)..."
 * All of the armor was Krupp, not just the belt.
 * "On 21 September 1910, Zähringen was decommissioned and her crew was transferred to the new dreadnought Rheinland," was the entirety of her crew moved to the Rheinland, as in no one else was moved anywhere else? More of a personal question than any needed change.
 * Yeah, this was common for the German Navy in this period - they were chronically short of crews, especially during the rapid expansion under Tirpitz - if you want the full story, Rheinland was commissioned for trials earlier that year, which lasted until 30 August. She then went to Wilhelmshaven, where most of her crew was transferred to SMS Von der Tann on 1 September. After the annual autumn maneuvers, Zähringen was decommissioned and her crew went to replace the men on Rheinland.
 * "advanced as far as the island of Utö on 9 May." perhaps "as far as the coast of the island of Utö", or something else of this effect, unless they docked at Utö.
 * I don't think the current wording implies they stopped at Utö.
 * Support. That is all my comments. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  20:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Iazyges. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert
Support: G'day Parsec, just a couple of minor suggestions from me, otherwise it looks GTG to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * this is slightly inconsistent: "powerplant was rated at 14,000 metric horsepower (13,808 ihp; 10,297 kW)" (body of article) v. "14,000 PS (13,810 ihp; 10,300 kW)" (infobox)
 * Good catch
 * SMS Elsass is overlinked
 * Fixed
 * suggest adding a translation for the title of the Ciupa work (as you have already done this for Grießmer)
 * Done
 * is the 1993 Hildebrand work in German? If so, for consistency I suggest adding the "| language = German" parameter for consistency
 * Done. Thanks AR. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Harry
Remaining images are all fine. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:S.M. Linienschiff Zähringen.jpg How do we know he author did >70 years ago if we don't know who the author is? You need a source for the publication date; if that checks out then it's PD in the US but we still need to know about the country of origin (presumably Germany).
 * Added the author.
 * File:Radio control ship Blitz.tiff Date given is "circa 1928" but the copyright tag only applies to pre-1923 works.
 * That's not technically correct, as the template says "in most cases", but I've switched it to the pd-because for clarity.
 * Thanks Harry! Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that. I can't promise somebody won't query your PD-because at FAC but I don't think it should be a dealbreaker. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The NHHC photos have gone through FAC several times now - Nikki doesn't have a problem with them, which is good enough for me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's good enough for Nikki it's good enough for me. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 09:08, 12 December 2017 (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.