Talk:SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Parsecboy in topic Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020
Featured articleSMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starSMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse is part of the Battleships of Germany series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 1, 2020.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 3, 2010Good article nomineeListed
August 17, 2010Good topic candidatePromoted
August 25, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
July 27, 2014WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 12, 2015Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    She then replaced her sister Kaiser Friedrich III as the squadron flagship, under the command of Prince Heinrich, which had to be docked for repairs - Which ship was under the command of Heinrich? I think that needs to be clarified. Also, I'm not sure what "Marine-type" boilers are, do you have any more info on this? Gatoclass (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
    I reworded the line, how does it look now? As for the boilers, for some reason Groener refers to them as "Marine-type boilers," what he means is just "naval boiler." Parsecboy (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
    The reword looks fine. I don't know what a "naval boiler" is either, but I'm not going to hold up the nom just over that. Gatoclass (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
  1. B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    Would be nice to have a little more detail about the ship's service in the Baltic in WWI. Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
    I know, but it just isn't out there. I've trawled through Google Books for wartime publications, and there isn't much concerned with these ships. Paul Halpern's A Naval History of World War I, which does a pretty good job of covering the Baltic, doesn't mention Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse or any of her sisterships at all. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, just thought I'd ask. Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
  1. B. Focused:  
  2. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  3. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    I tweaked the caption to clarify that it's an image of a sister ship, not Kaiser Wilhelm herself. If that's okay with you we can tick this one. Gatoclass (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
    Seems fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  5. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Perhaps a tad shorter than the ideal GA, but all aspects are adequately covered, the prose is straightforward and concise, and the article as a whole is well presented. Gatoclass (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

edit

Please change the name Wilhelm der Grosse to Wilhelm der Große (or at least mention it as the original German spelling, possibly with a hyperlink to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F). 62.195.163.234 (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is the English Wikipedia, and English does not use the eszett. There already is a note to that effect. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply