Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Wittelsbach-class battleship

< 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 by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Wittelsbach-class battleship

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Wittelsbach-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another class of German battleships up for A-class review - these were the first ships built under Alfred von Tirpitz's fleet expansion program in the late 1890s and early 1900s. They were long-since obsolete by the outbreak of World War I and thus saw little active use. Four were scrapped in the early 1920s, but one, Zähringen, was converted into a target ship and survived until 1944 when RAF bombers sank her. Thanks for taking the time to review the article in advance of an eventual run at FAC (we're getting mighty close to turning these all into stars). Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • in the lead, I suggest "The class comprised the lead ship, Wittelsbach, and Wettin, Zähringen, Schwaben, and Mecklenburg."
    • That works for me
  • there is a bit of repetition in the Design section. eg regarding speed, armour and engine power across the last two paras
    • I reworked it somewhat, but there's only so much you can do with armor descriptions in particular
  • suggest adding o/a to the infobox length
    • Done
  • the officers figure doesn't match between the infobox and body
    • Fixed
  • should "difficult to work in bad weather" be "difficult to work in heavy seas"?
    • Sure
  • the sources are all of high quality and reliable. No formatting issues.

That's all I have, great job! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM! Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • May I ask you what this is? guns and reducing the scale of armor protection to increase the top speed by .75 knots (1.39 km/h; 0.86 mph) Why isn't it "0.75" instead of ".75"? I know I wouldn't be the first one to ask.
  • If it need an oh then we should add one right?
  • I did
  • The five ships of the Wittelsbach class each had three three-cylinder triple expansion steam engines This is a little bit odd to see. The article uses double "threes" which is weird to look at.
    • Switched the second one to 3
  • produced 230 kilowatts (310 hp) First, link kilowatts. Second, what kinda horse power is it? And as last where is the metric horse power?
    • Done
  • were rated at 248 kilowatts (333 hp) Same as above.
    • Done
  • at 14,000 metric horsepower (13,808 ihp; 10,297 kW) Link ihp.
    • Done
  • at a rate of 4–5 per minute Maybe smaller hyphen?
    • Switched to "4 to 5"
  • shells at a muzzle velocity of 835 meters per second (2,740 ft/s) It could be helpful if you link both "meters per second" and "ft/s".
    • Done
  • thickness from 75 to 120 mm (3.0 to 4.7 in) Unnecessary oh in "3.0".
    • I can't fix that without forcing it to round 4.7 to 5, unfortunately
  • That's annoying but understandable.
  • making visits to Spain, the Canary Islands, and the Azores This sentence looks a little odd to me. The Canary Islands is part of Spain maybe add "mainland" before Spain could be helpful?

More comments
You thought we just finished, but, no. Round two just started, oh boy. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • speed to be increased by .5 knots No oh?
    • Fixed
  • each produced 230 kilowatts (310 PS) at 74 volts link PS.
    • I left that unlinked because we don't see the unabbreviated metric horsepower until afterward, and I wanted to have that be the linked term
  • was reduced to 500 m (550 yb) Is "yb" a typo?
    • Yup
  • The guns were manually elevated and trained.[13][12] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
    • Fixed
  • belt was backed by 100 mm of teak planking.[8][4] Same as above.
    • Fixed
  • of Mecklenburg, which was used as a prison ship.[29][30][9] Same as above.
    • Fixed

That's anything from (for now). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'em coming - the more that gets fixed now the less there is to do at FAC ;) Parsecboy (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments & support by Pendright

edit
Congratulations on another descriptive article about warships. A few comments to keep you on your toes. Pendright (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • By 1910, with the arrival of the first dreadnought battleships, the Wittelsbach-class ships were removed from front-line service, thereafter being relegated to training duties or simply laid up in reserve. With the outbreak of World War I in July 1914, the ships returned to active service as IV Battle Squadron, seeing guard duty in the North Sea and limited operations in the Baltic Sea against Russian forces. These included supporting the attack on Libau in May 1915 and the Battle of the Gulf of Riga in August that year."
Last sentence: "These included supporting ..." - seems unclear.
Changed to "these operations"
  • Those two ships, Mecklenburg, and Wettin were stricken from the naval register in the early 1920s
Consider the word these instead: it is used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated.
I think those is right there, because it's referring to Wittelsbach and Schwaben - "these" might seem to indicate the two ships named in that sentence

Design:

  • The weight savings, combined with a 5 percent increase in engine power, nevertheless permitted the top speed to be increased by .5 knots
Is nevertheless essential to the meaning of this sentence? If so, why?
Nope
  • The Wittelsbach design nevertheless incorporated incremental improvements over the Kaiser Friedrich III class, including improved defensive capabilities, as they were protected by a more extensive armored belt. Additionally, they received more powerful engines and were slightly faster.
Nevertheless - same question(s) as aove.
Nope - this was likely a remnant from an earlier version of the article and didn't get removed when I rewrote the section.
  • The Wittelsbachs were designed to displace 11,774 metric tons (11,588 long tons) with a standard load, and displaced up to 12,798 metric tons (12,596 long tons) at full combat weight. The Wittelsbach-class ships' hulls were built with transverse and longitudinal steel frames. Steel hull plates were riveted to the structure created by the frames. The hull was split into 14 watertight compartments and included a double bottom that ran for 70 percent of the length of the ship.
Last sentence: The use of " The hull was" and "the ship" seem to stray a bit from the inclusion of class?
Good point - reworded
  • To produce steam to power the engines, each ship had six marine-type boilers, with the exception of Wettin and Mecklenburg, which had six Thornycroft boilers, along with six transverse cylindrical boilers.
As you know, PSI is an important element of steampower - is this worth mentioning here?

World War I:

  • Further operations took place in September and October, which included covering the laying of defensive minefields in the western Baltic.
To be clear, which ship(s) did the "covering"?
Clarified
  • By this time, manpower shortages began to affect the German fleet; combined with the increased threat of British submarines operating in the Baltic, the lack of crews convinced the naval command of the need to remove the Wittelsbachs from service.
Is it necessary to mention manpower shortages twice in the same sentencce?
I think, grammatically, it does, but I've reworded it a bit to emphasize the point

Postwar fates:

  • Royal Air Force bombers sank the ship in Gotenhafen in 1944; ...
Would a direct reference to World War II be worthy of mention here?
That's a good idea
  • Images:
Consider adding a date to each image caption.
Done (apart from the line-drawing - doesn't seem particularly useful there)

General:

Will the lack of Alt text be a potential problem at the next level?
No - I don't generally add it because I don't really know what's useful or not.

Supporting - Pendright (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pendright! Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, except you seem to have overlooked the last comment under Design. Pendright (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2019 (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/Wittelsbach-class_battleship&oldid=894061810"