Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Big Bertha (howitzer)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Big Bertha (howitzer)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vami IV (talk)

Big Bertha (howitzer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

At long last, I am nominating the other big, huge, and heavy WWI German siege gun for A-Class review. Although I don't think it's ready for FAC because it relies primarily on a single source (though written on the English-language expert as far as I am aware), I do think it's ready for A-Class, as it's pretty much done otherwise. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:Panzerfort Loncin.jpg since this is on commons it needs German license tag
  • Vami_IV, I see the issue around the Great Dictator image has been redundant because it has been deleted from the article, perhaps this tag {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} may resolve the issue regarding the Panzerfort image? Zawed (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Great Dictator - The Big Bertha - Cannon in the First World War.JPG is this footage original to the Great Dictator movie? (t · c) buidhe 14:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea. At time of writing, I have not seen the movie. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is. 3:15. It appears to be a movie prop to my untrained eye. Schierbecker (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

I'll try to review this over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 15:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "used in 1918 after all Big Berthas had been removed from service" - this tidbit from the lead isn't in the body
  • Infobox says the Austro-Hungarians used it, but not seeing that in the body?
  • Oops. When I wrote this, I must have been thinking about the Skoda guns the Austrians were using. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but known as the Beta-Gerät to disguise its purpose as a siege gun" - is it worth glossing what exactly "Beta Gerat" indicated?
  • "Gerät" is "device"; the Germans knew they couldn't hide these giant guns entirely, so they did a lot of obfuscation to still get the drop on the French and Belgians. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the M-Gerät weighed 42.6 metric tons (42.6 t)" - I may be about to show stupidity here, but the conversion is converting between tonnes and metric tons, which our article on the subject suggests are the same thing? (I've only ever been taught the 2000 lb one, not sure if that's a ton, a long ton, or a short ton)
  • Ahhhh, I knew one of these would slip through. I've removed the parameter telling it to convert from tons to tons. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox and body appear to contradict on muzzle velocity (IB says 400m/s while body says 815m/s
  • "giving it a traverse of 360°" - but the infobox says 4 degrees?
  • Ditto. It must have slipped my mind to update the infobox. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The kurze Marinekanone (KMK) Batteries that formed " - are you sure Batteries should be capital here?
  • The premature detonation seems to be a problem - do the sources state if Big Bertha had it any worse than other German guns, or was it just crap ammo?
  • The guns blowing up was, according to Romanych and Rupp, the product of crap ammo (see #Ammunition). –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can it be directly stated that they didn't see service on the Eastern Front after the offensive in 1915?
  • Yes. Kind of. Romanych & Rupp say that their last use in 1915 was in Serbia, and then moves all the big guns back to the West for Verdun. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from 2011 to 2019" - both of the sources predate 2019 so that ending date isn't supported by the cites
  • Does the external link really add anything?
  • Not really, no. It's just there to preempt other editors (re)adding it. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there no usable images of one of the original pieces in WWI?
  • I have no idea; I fear, dread, and avoid image copyright. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm Talk 04:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vami, any comment on the one remaining point? I'd be okay with just removing the not fully-supported date range, as it's fairly incidental. Hog Farm Talk 19:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I missed that point and was out of internet for a couple days. It's addressed now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 18:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 - Support[edit]

  • "It had a longer and heavier barrel that was mated to the M-Gerät's carriage, but was found to be less effective than the base gun. " Delete comma
  • "breechloaded" should be "breech loaded"?
  • "The armour-piercing shell was designed to smash through concrete and metal armour, but was largely ineffective against reinforced concrete." Delete comma
  • Does 11th Army have a link?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed, thanks for reviewing~! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA-5[edit]

  • "a German siege howitzer built by Krupp AG in Essen, Germany" Pipe Germany to the German Empire.
  • The German Empire is linked in the lead before this. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When World War I broke out, the two available" I assume you use British English if so then change WWI to "the First World War".
  • "still prototypes, were sent to Liège and" Maybe add here "in Belgium"?
  • "a smaller-calibre (30.5-centimetre (12.0 in))" Is it possible to remove the nought here?
  • Development and design section isn't mentioned in the lead?
  • plus Added a morsel of the design history to the lead. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "partnership was a 30.5 cm (12.0 in) mortar" --> "partnership was a 30.5-centimetre (12.0 in) mortar" This is a compound adjective, also remove the nought here.
  • "opted for a 30.5 cm howitzer, the Beta-Gerät 09, and a 42 cm (17 in) gun" Same as above.
  •  Not done I am not going to un-abbreviate those units of measurement. It is unnecessary. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:UNITSYMBOLS the unit in a compound adjectives should be written fully with hyphen(s). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From UNITSYMBOLS, In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit [...] is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use. My format is also the format used across our GA+ articles on artillery. UNITSYMBOLS does not support or call for un-abbreviating these units of measurement. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 12:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "General guidelines on use of units" table bellow UNITSYMBOLS it states "To form a value and a unit name into a compound adjective use a hyphen or hyphens ..." and uses "a five-day holiday", "a five-cubic-foot box" and "a 10-centimeter blade" as examples. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. All instances of "[number] cm" replaced with "[number]-centimetre". –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 20:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a 28 cm (11 in) howitzer transportable" Same as above.
  • "Finally, in Autumn 1911, Krupp and the APK" Per MOS:SEASONS we should try to avoid seasons.
  • "the M-Gerät weighed 42.6 metric tons (41.9 long tons; 47.0 short tons)" If you use British English then use tonne instead of metric tons.
  • "and had a 5.04 m (16 ft 6 in) barrel" --> "and had a 5.04-metre (16 ft 6 in) barrel"
  • I see a lot of metres maybe per MOS:UNITNAMES abbreviated them?
  • "wagons could move at 7 km/h (4.3 mph)" Overlink here per MOS:OVERLINK.
  • "The 30.5 cm Beta-M-Gerät" --> "The 30.5-centimetre Beta-M-Gerät"
  • I see a lot of conversions of tons which isn't needed if they're too small to see a difference.
  • I've de-converted all examples of this outside the comparative table. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shells for the 42 cm guns" --> "Shells for the 42-centrimetre guns"
  • "arrived near Liège" Maye add the country here?
  • I'm not sure what the meaning is of the "de" in the name of the fort? Isn't it just the preposition "of"?
  • That's the naming convention for all the Belgian forts on French Wikipedia and, as I recall, the sources I used. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 42 cm guns" --> "The 42-centimetre guns"
  • "A single 42 cm shell struck" Another compound adjective here.
  • Unlink the units metres, feet, m/s and ft/s.
  • Hey Vami IV. Can you address this comment in the infobox? These units would make them MOS:OVERLINKED if you address them then we can finish my comments. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

  • Sources look to be good quality
  • Check source titles for title case as there is some inconsistency there
  • No publisher location for any references
  • I never include the location parameter for citations; saves space. Does it make the citations more verifiable if I include them? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, just wasn't sure if the omission was deliberate or unintentional. It's obviously a style choice which is fine. Zawed (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note a needs a cite
  • Couldn't find one; note removed.
  • Something is up with cite 47, it isn't linked like all the others
  • Spot checks done on the webcite links, and these are OK. I couldn't access the Economist article as it is behind a paywall. Happy to AGF on the print sources given nominator's history.
  • No need for AGF - I have added a archive of the Economist article. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the further reading, ISBNs are given with dashes but not in the references section. I would suggest putting all of the further reading titles into the cite book template for consistency with those in the references section.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2022 (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/Big_Bertha_(howitzer)&oldid=1112054819"