Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Wörth

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Wörth

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Another overhauled German battleship article up for ACR. This one served as the flagship of Kaiser Bill's little brother for the first years of her career, and she ruffled some diplomatic feathers, since her namesake, the Battle of Wörth took place during the then still-recent Franco-Prussian War. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments

Hey! Been a while since I've done one of these. Figured this would be a good way to get back into it.

  • The first thing that jumps out at me are the amount of red links. Not really a huge deal to me, but a little bit of a distraction. Some of them, such as Yangtze River are because of typos.
  • Fixed the typo, but the rest are perfectly fine per WP:REDLINK.
  • I think it would add more to the article if you could expand the World War I section, and split part of it in two, and expound upon what happened to her post-WWI that led to her being scrapped.
  • Unfortunately, there's not more to say. And as for what happened to her after the war, there's nothing more to say. I can't even tell you that she was scrapped under the terms of Versailles, because she was stricken from the register before the treaty was signed.
  • You could use a few more citations in the beginning of the World War I section where you talk about her being used in the V Battle Squadron as coastal defense in the north sea.
  • It all comes from page 99 in HRS. There's no need for more citations.
  • It may be that the WWI section seems shorter still owing to the level of detail in earlier sections -- OTOH if this is all a faithful reflection of the balance in the main sources, there's probably not much to be done about it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- started copyediting as usual, will continue later and post any issues/queries...

  • In the meantime, FN11 and 16 produce Harv errors -- install this script to detect them in future.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian, your edits look good to me so far. And that's a handy little script, thanks for pointing me to that. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mustn't have come across Harv errors when looking over your articles before at ACR or FAC, as I usually make a point of mentioning it then... ;-) Cheers, 14:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
What, you mean I've been doing something right this whole time? :) Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resuming, just a couple more queries/comments on the text:
    • I don't see the point of the Main article: Boxer Rebellion thingie at the top of the Boxer Rebellion section given that article offers no additional info (in fact no info!) on Worth's involvement. Linking Boxer Rebellion in the first paragraph of that section -- which you already do -- seems quite sufficient.
    • I have to admit that the diary-like detail in the Boxer Rebellion section -- all those stops to and from China -- became a bit wearing, though I wouldn't say I'm planning to oppose over it...
      • Part of the reason I wanted to include the information on the stops was to illustrate what a transcontinental deployment looked like in those days. But I'll defer if others agree with your view. Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article structure looks fine, as does comprehensiveness (perhaps even a little too much detail in places, per above!) and referencing.
  • No duplicate links but I haven't checked for dabs.
  • I also haven't performed image or source reviews -- provisionally supporting pending no issues there.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, all of the images are pre-1923 publications so they're all PD in the US. Many thanks for your thorough review and copy-editing, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • The infobox measurements need to be in metric to match the main body.
    • Done
  • Add # boilers and engines/type to the infobox with links
    • Added.
  • Move and link ihp to ship power line in infobox
    • Done
  • Replace ship type with ship class in the infobox
    • Done
  • Did she have Harvey or Krupp armor? 1890 is around the transition time between them.
    • Worth and Brandenburg had compound armor - KFW and Weissenburg got the nickel steel (which is why the Ottomans only bought those two)
  • Coal or oil-fired?
    • Added
  • I'd suggest switching these two phrases around due to heavy resistance were forced to stop in Tientsin
    • Sounds fine to me.
  • Wasn't Waldersee a field marshal?
  • I like the bits about sailing to and from China. I thought a similar amount of detail for the Russian squadron that sailed from the Baltic to be destroyed at Tsushima was appropriate given the enormity of the task, so maybe I'm biased.
  • Images are appropriately licensed.
  • The two volumes of HRS should have ISBNs, not ASINs.
    • Worldcat is being a royal pain in my ass and I can't find volume 8. In fact only the volumes up to 7 appear - I have no idea why now. And of course the books don't have the ISBNs printed.
  • Shouldn't McClure's Magazine be alphabetized among the Ms?
    • Fixed.
  • Gröner and Gardiner need state of publication to match Holborn.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments:

  • "twelve coal-fired transverse cylindrical boilers." - any chance of a comma or two between the adjectives?
  • "when she struck a rock. The rock tore" - Could just be "This tore..."
  • "She then joined the fleet for autumn maneuvers." - just checking, but is the source any more specific? (I'm thinking of the MOS on using terms like autumn; if the source isn't more specific, or if its an official term, that's obviously a different matter) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're called "Herbstmanoevern" (so literally "autumn maneuvers") in the text, and it's a useful shorthand for the fleet maneuvers that took place every year from mid-August to mid-September. And while I understand that autumn takes place in different months down in Oz and New Zealand, I don't think anyone is going to have trouble in the context, since it's book-ended by dates in August and November. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/SMS_Wörth&oldid=599560120"