Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/SMS Moltke

SMS Moltke (1910)
I've been working on this article for a little while now, and have got the prose pretty much knocked out. I'd like to get some advice/help as I steer the article towards higher assessment levels, ultimately to FA. I'm waiting on a couple of books that should give some more information about the ship's operations in the Baltic, and some sub-sections of the service history could use some more citations&mdash;I've got the books for that, just haven't had the time to comb through them yet. Thanks in advance for all comments. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Last sentence of article talks about another ship, not Moltke. When was Moltke raised and scrapped? Mjroots (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a copy-paste error; the year info was correct, just forgot to change it to Moltke. Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Jackyd101
Hi, a very nice article, well done. I've placed some comments below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead could stand to be expanded further, mainly with some more information on actions in which Moltke was engaged in the First World War. The first two paragraphs should be merged together as well.
 * According to its own article, Blohm + Voss was written as Blohm & Voss in 1909. Make this consistent throughout the text.
 * Sources needed for: the visit to the United States, the summary of service in World War I (which could also be expanded)
 * Instead of linking Kaiser, link it to the man (i.e. Wilhelm II of Germany)
 * I'd merge the first two sections of the bombardments. If not, then the second section should just be named Bombardment of Hartlepool as that was where Moltke was. (These incidents also have their own articles, which should be linked to.
 * "but struck one of the mines laid by Stralsund, and sank with great loss of life." - 23 odd men is tragic but not a great loss of life.
 * "The Russian navy had captured code books" - when? was this on Madeburg? If so, say so.
 * Numbers under ten should be written out rather than in numerals.
 * Make sure all notes and references com after punctuation without a space.
 * I think the heading levels should be reassessed, as the Jutland section is too long unbroken.
 * Where there any casualties in the 23 April 1918 accident and torpedo strike?


 * Thanks for your comments. I've been planning on working over the lead section and expanding it a bit, but haven't had the time to do so. I've fixed the instances of "Blohm + Voss", the link to Wilhelm II, added links to the bombardments. I'm going to hold off on merging the section on the first bombardment of Yarmouth, as I may be able to turn up some more information about it. Re: the D5, I guess was looking at it ratio-wise; only a handful of men (5, I think) survived the sinking. I'll just use the exact number if I can find it. As for the numbers under ten, I was taught (way back when) that if you had several numbers in a sentence, you'd use numerals. If we do it differently now, that's fine, but it seems strange to me to have mixed usage, for example, "14 dreadnoughts and eight pre-dreadnoughts and a screening force of two armored cruisers, seven light cruisers, and 54 torpedo boats". As far as I can tell, there were no casualties as a result of the 23 April '18 accident and torpedo hit; Staff's book, which uses German sources, makes no mention of any casualties. The Jutland section is rather long, but I think the toc is long enough already. It'd be nice if I could find some suitably licensed images of the ship during the battle (I was hoping the 100k image donation would have one or two of the ship, but they either don't have any, or they aren't included in the donation. (There's about 9 million of the Goeben, of course) I'll have to see what I can find elsewhere; perhaps the IWM has some relevant images. Thanks again for your comments and pointers. Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good improvements, and it seems you know where future improvements need to go. A very nice article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)