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

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Braunschweig-class battleship[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

This is another class of German battleships built in the early 1900s - they all served during World War I, though only three of the five actually saw any combat (two in the Baltic and one at Jutland). They were among the ships retained by Germany under the Versailles Treaty, and Hessen (and a chunk of Elsass) survived into World War II as a target ship, ultimately being seized by the Soviets as a war prize and operated for another decade and a half. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

I'll do this one.

  • far smaller than the standard in most other navies, 30.5 cm (12.0 in) caliber It is odd and not necessary to use the oh.
    • Fixed
  • heavy secondary battery of 7 in (180 mm) and 8 in (200 mm) guns It is odd to see imperial units before metric units. Even the country of origin do not use imperial units.
    • The US very much uses inches ;)
  • How about this one? The ships also had fourteen 8.8 cm (3.5 in) SK L/35 quick-firing guns in casemates along the length of the ship. The guns fired 15.4 lb (7 kg) shells at a muzzle velocity of 2,526 f/t (770 m/s)
  • Fixed
  • HMS Dreadnought—armed with ten 12-inch (30.5 cm) guns The inch isn't necessary because it is already used previously.
    • Removed the conversion
  • had four generators that produced 230 kW (74 V) I don't think it is necessary to link "Watt".
    • Removed
  • armament comprised four 28 cm (11 in) SK L/40 Remove the "11 in" part because there is already one previously.
    • Done
  • The guns fired 15.4 lb (7.0 kg) shells Again odd to see the "0" part.
    • Fixed
  • she was also occasionally used as an icebreaker to clear paths in the Baltic Do we know when or at least the year when she was an icebreaker?
    • Yes, but I don't feel like that's a relevant detail for the class article - the service history section should summarize all five ships and that's too much detail in my opinion.
  • minesweeping work was completed, and she was laid up in reserve.[10][27][22] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
    • Fixed.
  • ranged between 140–75–140 mm (5.51–2.95–5.51 in) in the sloped deck armor What the hack is this part for "140–75–140 mm (5.51–2.95–5.51 in)" this looks so odd to me? CPA-5 (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that is odd - I've rewritten the entire section so that it makes more sense. See how it reads now.

Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey mate just a question but is it necessary to add extra ohs in some metric units? like in this sentence and 127.70 m (419 ft) overall or in the infobox "127.70 m (419 ft) loa". Because it looks it isn't necessary or am I wrong? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It sure isn't - thanks for pointing that out.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

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

  • In the lead, perhaps mention that Dreadnought was British?
    • Done
  • In the lead, name the Russian battleship
    • Done
  • In the lead, suggest barracks ships and training ships
    • Good idea
  • In the lead, link ship commissioning for decommissioned
    • Done
  • "These were, however, the largest guns for which Krupp, the supplier of naval artillery to the Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy), had developed quick-firing technology."
    • Good catch
  • in some cases the metric measurement leads, in others, the imperial, this happens a few times, suggest standardising with either metric or imperial leading throughout
    • I generally go with the measurement used by the country that named them - this is mostly because simple conversions aren't strictly accurate - for instance, the German 28cm gun is not exactly 11-inches, nor is the British 12-inch gun exactly 30.5cm, which are the standard conversions you see in references.
  • suggest "the greater muzzle blast effects"
    • Done
  • suggest adding oa to the infobox for the length
    • Good catch
  • the draft range isn't reflected in the infobox
    • Fixed
  • my proforma comment about the mention of the advent of Dreadnought out of chronological order is also germane here
    • Yeah, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that ;)
  • mention what displacement is being used in the infobox
    • Done (and added the design displacement as well)
  • suggest putting 3 shafts triple expansion on separate lines in the infobox and linking triple expansion engine, also link PS and ihp?
    • All fixed
  • mention where the main battery turrets were located
    • Good idea
  • "The turrets were hydraulically operated" needs a full stop
    • Fixed
  • mention the number of TTs in the infobox?
    • Good catch
  • link PS at first mention in the body, along with ihp and kW
    • It is
  • "the three central 17 cm casemated guns" on each side?
    • Yes, clarified
  • in the body, the belt is 250 mm, but the infobox says different
    • Fixed
  • Lothingen→Lothringen
    • Fixed
  • link ship commissioning for decommissioned at first mention
    • Commissioning is linked in the design section - I don't see much point in linking to decommissioning, since it's the same article and its meaning should be obvious
  • "and tasked with coastal defense duties"
    • Done
  • "where they kept the Russian pre-dreadnought Slava"
    • Whoops!
  • "coming into contact with heavy British ships once" is a bit non-descript. Could we say battleships?
    • Doesn't the following sentence explain that?
      • To me, it reads as if there were two encounters, one with heavy British ships, and another with battlecruisers after that. Perhaps delete that sentence, as it seems superfluous as what actually happened is in the second sentence? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point of it is to make clear that Hessen wasn't in the thick of it - does this make it clearer? Parsecboy (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Late in the day on 31 May"
    • Done
  • comma after "based in Kiel in July"
    • Done
  • suggest "Guns removed from these ships starting in 1916"→"Starting in 1916, guns removed from these ships"
    • Done
  • suggest "After World War I, all of Germany's powerful dreadnoughts... as war prizes, so the"
    • Sure, but trimmed "World War I" to "the war"
  • "were converted into a hulk"→"were converted into hulks"
    • Fixed

That all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:High_Seas_Fleet_2nd_Battleship_Squadron_HD-SN-99-02146.JPG: source link is dead, when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

  • I have made a few copy edits which you will want to check.
  • "far smaller than the standard in most other navies, 30.5 cm (12 in) caliber". Optional: insert 'which was' before "30.5 cm".
    • Done
  • "These were, however, the largest guns for which Krupp". I am left, genuinely, unsure whether "these" applies to 24 or 30.5 cm guns.
    • Clarified
  • "would have necessitated reducing the number of guns, which would have had a reduced rate of fire". This reads as if reducing the number of guns would be the cause of reducing the rate of fire of the individual 10,5 cm guns. (To me.)
    • Reworded
  • "that were rated at 16,000 metric horsepower (16,000 ihp; 12,000 kW)". Optional: add 'each'.
    • No, that's the total power
  • "The first two ships—Braunschweig and Elsass had four generators that produced 230 kW (74 V), while three following ships—Hessen, Preussen, and Lothringen had four turbo-generators that provided 260 kW (110 V)." I suspect that there are dashes missing - after Elsass, and after Lothringen.
    • Good catch
  • "guns removed from these ships were used by the Imperial Army in World War I as railway guns". Optional: delete "in World War I"; this is, after all, the section title.
    • Good idea
  • "was captured by the Australian Army and was preserved as the Amiens Gun". "was" -> 'is'.
    • Fixed
  • "by which time the minesweeping work was completed". Optional: "was" -> 'had been'. Clearer, IMO, and currently you have "was" twice in four words.
    • Done
  • Note a: "After 1915, the practice of spraying oil onto the low-quality coal was introduced". "After 1915" is an odd construction. Strictly it means from, or in, 1916; if this is the case it would be better to say so. If it isn't it would be better to say whatever you do mean.
    • The problem is, I don't know exactly when they started doing this, so I can't be specific.
  • In which case can I suggest "From 1915", or "From 1916", or "From 1915 or 1916", or "At some point after 1915", or similar. At the moment you pass the uncertainty on to the reader. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That works for me.

Very good; little for me to pick at.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are all of high quality and reliable, what you would expect for a German ship of this vintage. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 19 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/Braunschweig-class_battleship&oldid=893149580"