Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Helgoland-class battleship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 --Eurocopter (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I recently rewrote this article, and finally finished up the prose today. It passed GA about a month and a half ago, and now that it's more or less finished, here we are. I appreciate any and all comments/suggestions. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment(s)
- In the "general characteristics" section you have the line "The class was greatly improved over the Nassau in terms of handling." This reads rather awkwardly, I would suggest rewording it.
- You have on disamgib link that needs to be located and if at all possible fixed.
- Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 12:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I fixed the dab and reworded that sentence; does it read more smoothly now? Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Better now. Thanks for the response. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with a few comments
- "Of the need to increase naval construction due to growing German isolation, von Tirpitz stated, "The aim which I had to keep in view...for technical and organizing reasons as well as reasons of political finance was to build as steadily as possible."[3]"
- When I see the word "isolation" here, I think of the United States' isolationist policy. I somehow doubt that Germany was cutting itself off like the U.S. though; perhaps a better word could be used?
- "The Helgoland class ships—Helgoland, Ostfriesland, Thüringen, and Oldenburg—were ordered under the provisional names Ersatz Siegfried, Ersatz Oldenburg, Ersatz Beowulf, and Ersatz Frithjof, respectively.[4]"
- 'Provisional names' needs to be explained. The only reason why I know what you mean is because of O class battlecruiser. :) Also, perhaps something should be thrown in about how all of the provisional names include the ships they were intended to replace?
- Having said that, I see farther down in the "Construction" section you explain it. Perhaps this could be mentioned in just one place in the article?
- "The ships were also significantly heavier than the Nassaus; the Helgolands displaced 22,808 metric tons (22,448 long tons) normally, and 24,700 metric tons (24,310 long tons) at full load, nearly 4,000 metric tons (3,900 long tons) more than the earlier ships.[A 1][5]"
- Ick, I don't like the look of "Nassaus". Could this be reworded? Also, should [A1] come after the ref? (it's your style choice, just asking)
- "Ostfriesland and Thüringen escaped the battle unscathed, although on the return to German waters, Ostfriesland struck a mine, and had to be repaired in Wilhelmshaven."
- Too many commas?
- Cheers Parsec, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Of the need to increase naval construction due to growing German isolation, von Tirpitz stated, "The aim which I had to keep in view...for technical and organizing reasons as well as reasons of political finance was to build as steadily as possible."[3]"
- Thanks for the review, Ed. I reworded the "isolation" sentence, does that read more clearly now? I fixed the "ersatz" stuff in the design section, and added a note to explain it further. "Nassaus" has also been fixed, along with the commas at the end (I think). Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent and interesting article. – Joe N 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article looks good. One minor point though, some links appear multiple times in the article (Nassau class battleship, SMS Oldenburg (1910), SMS Thüringen and a few others, mostly ships). Per WP:LINK each page should be linked to only on first reference. I see you linked to a few different ships with the same name, it could cut down on confusion if each ship was only linked to once. -Ed!(talk) 07:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review. I was thinking that Wikipedia:LINK#Link_density is a little vague, and that other ships would more than likely be the links people would want to click (since they're already reading a ship article), so it'd make more sense to sprinkle them in liberally. I'll take a look at the article and see where they're too close together. Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.