Talk:SMS Deutschland (1904)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Deutschland (1904)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• "Deutschland went into dock in Kiel' work lasted until 12 March" - I think there is some punctuation missing here, but I'm not sure what it should be.

• Looks like I hit the apostrophe key when I intended for the semi-colon. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• "result-less" - I'm not sure this is a word, "uneventful"?

• It is according to dictionary.com. I'll replace it if you prefer, though. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Mention Deutchland's class, operational purpose and immediate obsalesence in the Construction section - at the moment this is only in the lead.

• I added a main link to the class article and added the details you requested. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• "so-called "five-minute ships"" - why were they so-called?

• That's explained in the second note. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

• It is stable.

  

• 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:

• Good work, no further changes required. I'm ready to pass this as GA now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Other ships with the same name

The subject of the article appears to be the second of six naval ships of the same name. Would this be an addition to the article or would it be too trivial or even WP:NOR? --John (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not NOR if we have (referenced) mentions of the other ships somewhere. This kind of information is often included in these articles (i.e. how many with the same name). - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Increased clarity needed in Battle of Jutland section?

After the Gefechtskehrtwendung (battle about turn), the ships of II Battle Squadron should be in the lead steaming line-ahead. However, the next sentence says, Having fallen behind, the ships of II Battle Squadron could not conform to the new course following the turn. without mentioning any interim maneuver being ordered.

The second sentence after that says, Mauve considered moving his ships to the rear of the line, astern of the III Battle Squadron dreadnoughts, but decided against it when he realized the movement would interfere with the maneuvering of Admiral Franz von Hipper's battlecruisers. Instead, he attempted to place his ships at the head of the line. Why would the choice be left up to a subordinate commander and how would the slowest capital ships be able to maneuver well enough for him to have that choice? Dhtwiki (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

There was no interim maneuver needed - look at detailed course maps of the battle (i.e., not the one in the article, the ones in some of the sources used like Tarrant and Campbell).

Division commanders had a good deal of discretion on how to handle their units - this is a necessary component of command when you're talking about large formations that can easily fall into disarray (as happened in this specific instance). For an example of the reverse, much has been written on Evan-Thomas's absolutely bone-headed decision to ignore Beatty's turn north earlier in the battle and instead blunder his 5th Squadron into the main German fleet. And as for how Mauve was intending to do this, again, look at the maps to see how the units were arrayed. Parsecboy (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

8-point turn

the 8-point link is to an article that defines at least two different compass points: 22.5o and 11.25o. I suggest to write "8-point (90o) turn" or "8-point (180o) turn".

by the way: I arrived here because curious of knowing why the Deutschland was discarded in 1920 while three vessels of the previous class were retained (note that the D suffered no damages at the Jutland, so heavy war wear seems improbable)

pietro151.29.14.156 (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Category

The removal of the category contradicts the article's text: "In May–June, fleet training was conducted off Helgoland; Crown Prince Wilhelm, the Kaiser's son, observed the exercises aboard Deutschland." It is part of his military career. Dimadick (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Tell me, when did Wilhelm ever serve in the navy? He spent a few hours on the ship. This was not significant, and the category does not apply. Parsecboy (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)