Talk:König-class battleship

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SMS Konig.jpg

The image Image:SMS Konig.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:König class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• Design: Would Tirpitz's pushing be fairly rendered as Tirpitz's ultimatum - think that'd read better.
• Armament: You write ten 30.5 cm SK L/50 guns in five twin turrets here but ten 30.5 cm SK L/50 guns in 5 twin turrets in the intro. I think either can be justified according to MOS, five because it's less than 10, 5 to avoid any confusion with twin - however the rule should be applied consistently throughout.
• Raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby: Not sure of the rationale for digits in 2-hour long battle and 6 British dreadnoughts...
• Operation Albion: In Along with several 9 light cruisers, 3 torpedo boat flotillas, and dozens of mine warfare ships, the entire force numbered some 300 ships, and were supported by over 100 aircraft and 6 zeppelins, were there 'several' or '9' light cruisers? Also I'd have thought we could use words for the single-digit numbers and digits for the big numbers...

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• Fate: Last sentence of first para should have a citation, for completeness.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Overall very good, very balanced and readable, just a few quite minor points to be addressed before passing it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Ian. I've been thumped on the numbers thing before, I believe I was taught in school to use digits for every number in a sentence even if only one of them should be (i.e., a 2-digit number, etc.), but I keep forgetting that we do it differently here. It just looks a little odd to me to see "five, 23, one, three, 106" all in one sentence. Anyways, I fixed them and added the citation to the first para in "Fate." Also, I think "ultimatum" is a lot better; when I was writing that, I couldn't think of a good way to put it. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It all works for me - congrats on another GA pass! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Map of the scuttled ships

A minor point: the map shows the location of the vessels prior to scuttling, not afterwards. According to a 1919 image I have, a number of destroyers and small cruisers were beached west of Fara and Cava, and Baden, Emden, and a cruiser were run ashore near Swanbister. So the map does not show the location of all ships after scuttling (although likely is accurate as to the final location of König). Hence this change to the caption; perhaps other wording would be better. Kablammo (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

8.8 cm guns

The articlae states that there were 200 shells per gun, a total of 3200 shells. These figures dont add on... 200 * 6 is 1200, not 3200. Were there more than 6 guns? Thanks, Zkip (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned during SMS Markgraf review, the Königs Class ships carried 6 x 8.8cm L/35 - C/06 MPL which were later replaced by either 2 or 4 x 8.8cm Flak L/45 C/13 MPL. This means that the Königs class either carried 6 (in the beginning) and later either 2 or 4 8.8cm guns, but never 10. (Koop & Schmolke page 117). MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

6×200=1200, not 3200; 10×200=2000, still not 3200 – which number does not fit? 200 or 3200?--Andreas (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Turrets

The Text says:

"The centerline arrangement was an improvement over the preceding Kaiser class, as all ten guns could fire on a wide arc on the broadside, and four guns could fire directly ahead, as opposed to only two on the Kaisers."

The Kaisers could fire six of their guns forward, as the previous German dreadnought battleships. The one turret in the bow and the two wingturrets (but at least one of the both). This was the point of this arrangement if I am not mistaken. --Andreas (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Operation Albion - Target for the Class

It can be read:

„To this end, the Admiralstab (the Navy High Command) planned an operation to seize the Baltic islands of Ösel, particularly the Russian gun batteries on the Sworbe peninsula.”

According to the article the Königs were attacking the batteries at the Tagga Bay, those of the Sworbe peninsula were targeted by the Kaisers. I think this should be mentioned in this sentence. --Andreas (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)