Talk:SMS Seydlitz/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
~~Inconsistent use of tonnes and the ambiguous tons (metric? long?). Given the American style of spelling that seems predominant, I would think "metric ton" would be preferred over "tonne".~~

-All changed to metric tons.

Inconsistent units: Infobox lists feet-inches measurements first, body of article lists metric units first. It should be on or the other. One exception might be for … a 34.3 cm (13.5 in) shell from HMS Lion… where the British shell was measured in inches, right?

-All fixed, and I switched the 13.5in/343mm, since the British did measure their shells in inches.

Ambiguous wording in early in the battle, two salvos from both Seydlitz and Derfflinger…: was it one salvo from each ship, two from each ship, or two but don't know which of the two ships?

-It's not at all clear which ship was doing the firing for both salvos. Tarrant's book states the following:
"According to observers on board Tiger and New Zealand, three shells out of a salvo of four hit Queen Mary simultaneously...Two further shells of the next salvo then struck the ship."

Burr's British Battlecruisers 1914–1918 states that:
Derfflinger timed her gunfire to alternate with Seydlitz, so Queen Mary was subject to a hail of shells..."

Those two statements indicate to me that one salvo was from Seydlitz and the other from Derfflinger, but there seems to be no record of which was which (and Tarrant's book relies heavily on the German official records/archives, so if he hasn't found it, it probably doesn't exist). But I don't want to stray too far into my own interpretations. Thoughts?
I just changed it to say … early in the battle, salvos from both Seydlitz and Derfflinger… (removing the "two") which leaves it slightly ambiguous, since that's what the historical record seems to be. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Despite the success of the previous German battlecruisers…. What success is being talked about? Design?~~

-Yes, design. I clarified it in the text.

~~…1,800 kW (220 V). reads like a unit conversion, but kilowatts don't translate into Volts. Should that be something like …1,800 kW @ 220 V.?~~

-Yup, I fixed that.

~~Beatty presumed that the German cruisers were the advance screen for Hipper's ships, however those were some 50 km (31 mi) ahead. It's unclear what those is referring to.~~

-Fixed.

Inconsistent spellings of "harbor" and "harbour". Since it appears to be in American English I've changed it in a couple of places. Please change back if this is in International English.

-Thanks for catching that.

~~Any information on the actual scuttling of Seydlitz? The article jumps from orders to the ship being raised in 1928...~~

-I haven't found much so far, but I did track down the time of the ship's sinking.
Good. That makes the transition a little bit better… — Bellhalla (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A very thorough article. I did some light copy-editing while reviewing this—mostly minor things like spacing, conversions using {{convert}}, spelling, etc.—and had only the few items above which need to be addressed. If you have any questions about the review, please post them here (it's on my watchlistt). — Bellhalla (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyediting and review. I think I've fixed all of the problems, with the exception of the salvo bit at Jutland. Parsecboy (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]