Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Elsass

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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Elsass

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Featured article candidates/SMS Elsass/archive1

Another overhauled German battleship article up for A-class. This ship saw limited action during World War I, being largely confined to the quieter Baltic Sea. She was one of a handful of battleships Germany was allowed to retain under the Versailles Treaty, but she did not survive to see World War II. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support What a very fascinating and well-written entry.

I don't see that there is ALT text for the infobox image?
The Treaty of Versailles, which ended the war, specified that Germany was permitted to retain six battleships of the older "Deutschland or Lothringen class." - In respect of the preceding sentence, every English edition of the Treaty of Versailles I've been able to find (e.g. [1]) uses the word "type" instead of "class". Obviously they're synonyms in this context, but just to be true to source - since quotation marks have been invoked - should we change "class" to "type"? Also in respect of this sentence, per MOS:TQ I think the period should be outside the quotation marks since there is not a full stop in the original text?
No DAB issues, everything seems compliant with MOS, the article is well-illustrated with rights-appropriate images and descriptive captions. The article is obviously NPOV and seems stable.
The sources are almost entirely to books by academic and scholarly publishers other than some period texts. The only exception is the Hore volume as I've never heard of Southwater Books. However, it received a glowing review in Canadian Naval Review [2] so it seems like a quality source. This just passed GA so I AGF that the sources I can't check-out are all true to the text.

A very interesting and enjoyable read! Chetsford (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review all images are appropriately licensed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support from PM

the infobox says 14 Scotch boilers, but the body says only six?
- Reworded for clarity
the conversion rounding on the 8.8 cm guns varies between the body and infobox
- Fixed
the infobox doesn't reflect the number of TTs
- Good catch, fixed
The para beginning "The British battleship HMS Dreadnought..." would probably be better inserted in the service history section at the appropriate point
- I'm wondering if it might fit better in the first para of that section
  - I was thinking after fn 13, where it fits in the chronology, marking the point in her career when she effectively became obsolete? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To improve the flow, I suggest naming her first commander, then moving the mention of her second commander to the appropriate part of the narrative, perhaps immediately after Swinemünde is first mentioned
- Good idea
"squadron training in the North Sea and Baltic Sea in May" of what year?
- Good catch
was there an inquiry into the ammo accident? Outcome?
- Nothing that Hildebrand mentioned.
perhaps mention that Kaiserin was also a dreadnought?
- Ok
as a VAdm, would Ehrhard Schmidt be notable? redlink?
- Yes, though he already has an article
on second mention, you could get away with dropping armored cruiser from Blücher
- Done
"conducted ~~a pair of~~ sweeps in the Baltic"
- Done
"though she inflicted"?
- Good catch
drop the VAdm when you mention Schmidt the second time
- Done
link Liepāja for Libau
- Done
Reichsmarine is not in italics and then in italics and then not, suggest in italics as it is not in Merriam-Webster per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC
- Fixed.

That's me done. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel66

Just a quick drive-by for the nonce.

No DABs.
No overlinking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

There are two of "Hildebrand; Röhr; Steinmetz(1993)"; one should be 1993a and the other should be 1993b, and the sfns or whatever you used should be altered to match. Everything else looks beautiful. Nice work. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not necessary - they're different volumes and are disambiguated that way. Parsecboy (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.