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

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)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vami IV (talk)

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

German license tag? –♠Vami _IV†♠ 15:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Removed. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 06:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Corrected. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 06:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"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?

lowercased –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 06:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cut. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 18:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

"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

Removed –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 11:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"breechloaded" should be "breech loaded"?

Corrected. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 11:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The armour-piercing shell was designed to smash through concrete and metal armour, but was largely ineffective against reinforced concrete." Delete comma

Removed –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 11:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does 11th Army have a link?

Yes; added. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 11:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

"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".

Done –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"still prototypes, were sent to Liège and" Maybe add here "in Belgium"?

Done –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a smaller-calibre (30.5-centimetre (12.0 in))" Is it possible to remove the nought here?

Yes; Done –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Development and design section isn't mentioned in the lead?

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.

Done? I cannot remove the hyphen. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"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.

Fixed –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"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.

Done –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"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?

Done –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"wagons could move at 7 km/h (4.3 mph)" Overlink here per MOS:OVERLINK.

Removed –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"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?

Done –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Oh shoot, I forgot about this one. Gone now. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 13:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"1914–18" --> "1914–1918" Per MOS:DATERANGE.
- Done –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 04:27, 16 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

Sources look to be good quality
Check source titles for title case as there is some inconsistency there

Rendered consistent. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 04:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oops. Converted now. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 04:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Rendered consistent. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 04:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.