Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Rheinland

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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 03:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

SMS Rheinland

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

• Featured article candidates/SMS Rheinland/archive1

The last of the four Nassau-class battleships to grace the hallowed Milhist ACR page, Rheinland was the first vessel to be laid down but the third completed. I wrote this article primarily in May, and it has since passed a Good Article review and been copy-edited by Dank. I feel the article is at or close to A-class quality, and I look forward to working with the reviewers toward improving this article for an eventual run at FAC. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to examine the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, no ext links (so none can be broken) (no action required);
  • some images have alt text, but the HMS Black Prince picture does not. I suggest it be added for consistency, but it is only a suggestion;
    • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the lead, this might need to be reworded slightly: "...sold the ship to ship-breakers in the Netherlands. The ship was eventually..." (ship is mentioned a few times);
    • How does it look now?
      • Looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Battle of tghe Gulf of Riga section, sometimes you have "the Gulf" and then at other times "the gulf" (the capitalisation is the issue here, I think it is a proper noun so it should be "the Gulf");
    • Yeah, I did that on Westfalen too... Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the World War I section you have "of some 12 dreadnoughts", but then later in the Battle of Jutland section have this: "eleven German dreadnoughts". I think the eleven should be changed to 11 to satisfy the MOS;
    • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Battle of Jutland section, this sounds a little awkward: "Although the bulkhead was bulged in from..." (bulged in doesn't quite sound right to my ear, but I'm not sure what to suggest, sorry);
    • I changed it to "bent inward." What do you think of that? Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, that works. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Expedition to Finland section, I think this may have been brought up before - the Helsingfors/Helsinki issue. Not sure what was said last time, but I think there was a suggestion to include a bracketed comment beside Helsingfors that it is also known as Helsinki in Engish, e.g. "Helsingfors (Helsinki)...";
    • That's it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Fate section, I think a short explaination might be required for why the High Seas Fleet was interned in Scapa Flow, e.g under the provisions of the armistice. This could be done by just adding a short clause to the end of the first sentence of the section;
    • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section, the year ranges should have endashes per WP:DASH;
    • Both ref issues have been fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section some of the ISBNs have hyphens and some do not. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't see any edits of mine ... sorry if I forgot this one, I'll do it now. - Dank (push to talk)
• When I did an English-language Google search, I got many more hits for "German Imperial Navy" than for "Kaiserliche Marine", so I'm assuming the English term goes first with the German in parentheses ... does anyone know different? - Dank (push to talk)
• I don't know if you care about consistency with hyphens before "class", Nate ... if so, search for "Sachsen class armored frigate". - Dank (push to talk)
• Although "manned" is acceptable to some, and there's an argument that it fits with the wiki-philosophy that we're not trying to be in any sense "better" or "more sensitive" than our sources, I still think that we need to be aware that most writers, academics and professionals have felt that words like "manned" have been outdated since before 1980, and some feel they reflect negatively on the writer (and copyeditor!) ... even though the crew was (probably) all male. The thinking has been that the automatic and unconscious use of such words reinforces the bias that things will go horribly wrong if you put women on a ship. But I think the main argument isn't about "sensitivity", it's that I haven't seen the word for over 30 years in writing of the kind we're trying to emulate. - Dank (push to talk)
• I believe I've copyedited the Battle of the Gulf of Riga section before. - Dank (push to talk)
• Same with Battle of Jutland and the first paragraph in the next section. If someone could look through to make sure that the stuff that was copyedited before still looks good, I'd appreciate it. It's a fine article but I'll hold off on my support for now. - Dank (push to talk) 04:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. I finished up the copyediting I was asking for help with. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Support -- prose, sourcing, and supporting materials all look good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Oil or coal-fired?
• Conversion needed for ihp
• What time is used in the Jutland section?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • All fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.