Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Peer review/2009

2009 archive

USS Constitution

• Previous peer review when the article was sub-B-class is here

Been almost a year since passing to FA. I'm quite confident this article still meets FA requirements. I've maintained the article with updating and adding alt text, reverting silliness etc. Since going FA I have removed two large chunks of information and moved them to the main original six frigate article. I also went through and removed some of the more trivial things that were awkward and difficult to place in prose correctly. Therefore I'm hoping to get feedback on the flow and prose of the article. Is it still understandable to the average reader? Did moving the information leave some things unexplained? I have never been totally thrilled with the prose and flow of the article so copy edits are welcome. It's also hard to believe a year has passed! --Brad (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

Cite nitpicks

Full stops at the end of all cites?

No date, volume, edition, pages (other magazine cites in the same boat where you've referenced an online version): Cuticchia, Rosalie A. "Celebrating The History Of The U.S.S. Constitution". Marblehead Magazine.

Citation date consistency: Hendrix, Steve (16 November 2003) but yet Jennings 1966

Add to bibliography, repeatedly cited: DANFS.

Spacing: Jennings 1966, p.70

fn114. DANFS wikilinked for no apparent reason.

fn150: No author supplied, article from the 1970s, expectation of attribution in the 1970s Other news articles lack authors. Consider implementing [Staff Writer] for unnamed newsarticles from the 20th century onwards. Colon breaks your newspaper citation style consistency (see fn98). There are other floating colons in newscites, pick one way, stick. ""Happy 200th party for U. S.". Chicago Tribune: p. C12. 30 December 1976."

fn148 American Forests not ital? Publisher? Magazine? Unclear with your citation style.

fn157 contains location data on a book. Not all books have location data. Standardise one way or the other, or the middle way (no location when location obvious from University Publisher).

Well done in keeping the article's references that well for over a year! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

RNLB Mary Stanford

I request a peer review of this article, I want to raise awareness of the only lifeboat to be awarded a gold medal (boat as distinct from the crew) being left to rot. I waited until now until I received a just published book. ClemMcGann (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had to go abroad 5Nov - 18Nov and will have limited access to the internet (just internet cafes) and no access to books - therefore I have to put any responses on hold until then - thanks ClemMcGann (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Brad101

I hadn't noticed you posted for a formal review. What I said on my talk page I'll repeat here just for kicks. The next step would be a good article review if it meets the good article criteria. The lead section should be expanded and make sure there are inline citations on every paragraph in the article. In its current condition the article does need some work to make GA but not a substantial amount of work. --Brad (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Pity I cannot add add this postage stamp image -- ClemMcGann (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

HMS Graph (P715)

Article for the captured U-boat U-570 (HMS Graph). It's clearly no longer a start class article as most substantial facts about its career have now been covered. But I'm sure it still needs work to smooth out unnoticed mistakes. Catsmeat (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Brad101

What exactly are your goals for this article? If I were going to rate the article this minute, it wouldn't meet B-class as the lead section is too short. There are also missing citations on several paragraphs. If those two issues are dealt with then it will pass B-class. --Brad (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess my objective is to take it to B, then see how it goes. To be honest, I think there are bits that need expanding if it's to be taken further. In particular, the boat's combat career with the Royal Navy. I came across some forum posting that claimed she was used to patrol the Bay of Biscay as a kind of decoy, to attack U-boats going out on, and returning from, North Atlantic patrols. Though I've found no reference that confirms this.

Regarding references, I've been lax in places and put in one refernce tag for paragraphs that mentions several facts, all orriginating from the same publication and page. I'll look to dealing with that. Catsmeat (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My motto is never be afraid to go to the library for books if you can find any for this subject. If your local library has online access for newspaper archives then it's a good idea to look there too. --Brad (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

David Underdown

I've done a bit of copy-editing, mostly removing a couple of stray Americanisms, sorting out dahses (as best I understand them), and moving references to after punctuation as per the normal practice. I've also tweaked a few references to make them link to useful things, and reflect the fact the Public Record Office became The National Archives back in 2003. David Underdown (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

MisterBee1966

• I suggest to clean up the citations. Currently it looks very messy. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• What is the naming convention for ships? Example: USS Ringgold (DD-500) was transferred to West Germany and later to Greece. Nevertheless the article is named after its first operator. Following this reasoning the article should be named German submarine U-570 and not HMS Graph (P715). MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Here are the naming conventions: WP:NC-SHIPS -MBK₀₀₄ 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The convention sensibly is "An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name". I'd be fine with changing the article name, except I genuinely can't say which is the better known and/or most commonly used. If there is a convention in the sources I've seen, it is to use her German name when referring to her brief, pre-capture history and the British name for her post-capture history. Can you give specific examples of the citations that need tidied up? Catsmeat (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care as long as we apply similar naming conventions. You also point to the article HMS Seal (N37) which was captured by the Germans during World War II. Either way I think something needs to change since the stories sound similar only reversed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Seal had a reasonable RN operational history before being captured, and was never made operational by the Germans. U-570/Graph was captured on her first operational outing, and was brought fully into RN service, so the naming of each seems reasonable enough to me. David Underdown (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Example: citation 28: Blair, page 347 and citation 37: Blair, Clay (1999). Hitler's U-Boat War: The Hunted 1942-45. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. p. 68. ISBN 0297840770. Make them consistent. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are referrences to different volumes in Blair's two-volume work. My bad - I'll fix it. Catsmeat (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

pber26

• Added external link to excellent webpage : U570 at submariners.co.uk, Submariners Association, Barrow in Furness Branch.

That site names two books. Citation : "The famed U-boat has also been the topic of at least two books - HM U-boat by John Drummond and The Golden Horseshoe by Terrence Robertson."

• Found details about first referenced book "HM U BOAT by John Drummond ; Published by WH Allen in 1958, second printing ; Illustrated". (external link : http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=216510089)
• Having in my hands the french translation (by Roland Mehl) of that in-8° paperback edition, "U-570 contre Kriegsmarine", John Drummond, 1961, Calman-Lévy, Paris, n°8965, 244 pages (8 to 236).

13:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Collins class submarine

This article recently underwent a major expansion in order to solve multiple issues; content was poorly organised, some sections were filled with peacock terms and/or copied directly from the source, and there were a lack of sources for large sections of the article.

With these problems (hopefully) solved, I would like to see the article make the run towards the higher ratings (A, GA, FA), and am requesting a peer review with the intention of bringing this to pass. I acknowledge that there are some areas already identified where the article needs improvement (i.e. some assorted citation/clarification tags in the text, and the poor state of the "Appearances in media and fiction" section), and assistance or suggestions to solve these and other problems with the article would be greatly appreciated. -- saberwyn 08:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: As it has been over a month since someone has commented on the article, should this peer review be closed? Any further suggestions or comments can always be made at the article's talk page. -- saberwyn 04:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

MBK004

• For the "Appearances in media and fiction" section, that needs to follow WP:MILPOP explicitly, and integrate the operational aspects into the actual service history of the vessels instead of lumping them all together in a section that is a magnet for every insignificant appearance of the vessels.
• As for the rest of the article, when I get a chance I'll leave a more thorough review. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The content regarding the documentary and coffee table book is already replicated and integrated in the operational history section of Rankin, the relevent submarine. I'm not sure how major the "7 Wonders of the Australian Engineering World" appearance is... the claim was in the article when I started, and I have not yet found any sources independant of the work commenting on it. The fictional sub in "Y: The Last Man" is a major factor across multiple issues, with the submarine 'hosting' the main characters in their travels during volumes 6 and 7 of the 10-volume series, and one of the officers joining the main characters for the rest of the series. However, again, I haven't yet found reliable published commentary on this. The easiest solution would probably be to scrub the section entirely. -- saberwyn 01:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Update: I've scrubbed it. Let me know if you think anything should be put back in. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D

Congratulations on your fantastic work expanding this article - it really is very impressive. My comments are

• The second sentence in the 3rd para of the lead is rather long and complex
  • Trimmed that sentance down a bit. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• The background section could include a description of how the RAN's views on submarines changed as a result of the emphatic success of the Oberon class (which were purchased mainly to be used to support ASW training but ended up being outstanding front line assets)
  • The article is fairly long and complex as it is, and I think this information would be more relevant in the article for the Oberon class or the RAN submarine service. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• You could expand upon the decision to build the boats in Australia; this was a very big decision for Cabinet to make given the poor state of the Australian shipbuilding industry at the time and several ministers later said that they didn't realise what they'd gotten the Government into.
  • Will get back to you on this one, need to find sources to back this up. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I think I read this in Yule and Woolner's book Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • There's a two-page history of Australian shipbuilding in the book, but I haven't yet found anything connecting the state of the industry to the decision (or the wisdom thereof) to build some or all of the boats down under. I'll keep digging, though. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Update: I can't find anything substantial on the decision beyond whats already in the article in Yule/Woolner or any of the other sources. If I come across anything in new sources in the future, I'll use it, but no guarantees on me being able to find anything. -- saberwyn 06:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• It's probably an over-statement to say that building the subs in Queensland would have been "political suicide for the project" - 'politically unacceptable' perhaps?
  • Toned down. "Politically unacceptable" sounds like it was a Canberra decision, not a company decision, so I've used "politically unwise". -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Am I right in thinking that the combat system which was eventually installed on the subs was the same as that used for the USN's Virginia class?
  • My understanding is that they were based on the same platform, with some modifications made to the combat system for each class covering features not required for the other class. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the cite clarifying this. -- saberwyn 08:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that the SH-2G Super Seasprite program/fiasco is a good comparison to draw on in a section which basically argues that cost increases weren't that bad - is there an average rate which can be used as a comparison instead? (the Seasprites are often considered the least successful recent Defence acquisition program, so just about everything is better then it was)
  • Seasprite was the example used in the source (which was written back when that acquisition was still kinda viable). No average rate was given, but your point is made. If I can find someting giving the average overrrun, I'll add it back in, but for now I've removed the comparison. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• The 'Sensors and systems' section should be converted to prose. The subs ESM system should also be identified as this is a key part of their capabilities.
  • The sensors and systems was left in list form to avoid a lot of single sentance-fragment paragraphs. The sources I've accessed so far have been fairly light on information about these systems (as opposed to simply "The Collins class is fited with:...") and as more I find more information I'll add it in and expand it to prose. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I've tried converting it to paragraphs. How does it look now? -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• The 'characteristics' section should mention that the boats' design includes the ability to land special forces teams and that Collins was specially fitted with large hatches to support their operations during her recent major refit (according to Jane's Fighting Ships). I think that some or all of the other boats will also be fitted with the larger hatches.
  • According to MILHIST Logisitcs, you have access to Jane's Fighting Ships. If you could add the information in with a specific cite, that would be brilliant. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll look it up next time I'm near a copy (which should be in the next week). There are also some mentions of this on the ASC website, but Jane's is obviously the better source. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Saberwyn, the 99-00 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships is on my shelf. Is that up to date enough for the question you want answered - not clear what exactly it is from this thread. Update: there's nothing in my edition about Special Forces hatches. Buckshot06(prof) 05:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I think that Collins was modified to better support SF in about 2005 Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• According to The Age, Waller was the boat which supported INTERFET in 1999
  • Thanks. Added. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• The 'operational history' section should mention that the boats are routinely deployed on operations in peacetime to keep an eye on Australia's neigbours
  • If I can find a source that makes this claim, I'll add it in. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll also try to find where I saw this. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • This press release states that the subs are "a surveillance and intelligence gathering-platform during peace time". Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I've drummed up a bit of content in the first paragraph of the "Operational History" ("The submarines' primary missions are..."). I didn't use the abovementioned source, but I've instead pulled a couple of facts from the 7:30 Report transcript you used to cite the special forces capability. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• The coverage of the poor working conditions on the submarines and what's being done about this should be expanded. The report on this released late last year is on the Defence website and got a lot of media attention. The report found that only SAS teams in Afghanistan had worse working conditions than submariners on an operational deployment!
  • Was this the Submarine Workforce Sustainability Review? I'll look for more sources covering this. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yep, that's the report. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Added a line to the relevant part of the "Ship's company" section re: lowest morale and job satisfaction in the RAN. I'll keep an eye out for some more content to bulk that up a bit. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Found some other sources that go into a little more detail than those previously used, so I've traded them in and bulked up the paragraph a little. -- saberwyn 08:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• The 'Public perception' section repeats quite a bit of material mentioned earlier in the article. The statements that the RAN was slow to realise that the Collins class required a high degree of support and development also seems a bit out of place here. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Any suggestions on what could be eliminated or moved elsewhere? -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The first para could be integrated with the 'development and design' section (as it seems to be about specialists' views and political maneuvering), the second para could be split between the 'development and design' and 'Problems during construction and trials' sections, the third para could be integrated with the 'Problems during construction and trials' section, the fourth seems to fit in with the 'McIntosh-Prescott Report and Fast Track program' sub-section and the final para with the 'Operational history' section. Those are just suggestions though. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I've removed the section and placed it at User:Saberwyn/Collins class#Public perception scrapyard. From there, I've merged some of the content back into the rest of the article, and eliminated some of the duplication, but I'm not sure how to work the rest in at the moment. -- saberwyn 06:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Update: I think I have most of it intefrated back in now. -- saberwyn 06:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Battleship

This article rates as an FA, but hasn't been reviewed in any official capacity in nearly two years and as such is now on the verge of an FAR. I'm loathe to see that happen, so I am taking the initiative to keep the bronze star by offering to do the grunt work. I am interested in anything you guys think needs fixed, improved, expanded upon, trimmed down, cited, recited, corrected, or otherwise addressed. As this article falls within the scope of Operation Majestic Titan you may find others besides me moving to address the issues as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • All images are currently in need of alt text. One external link is reported as suspicious, please check and advise. Two disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• You might expand on the definition of an armored frigate so that readers will understand how a steam battleship can be cut down, armored and called a frigate.
• You might clarify that the definition of a "dreadnought" was limited to "all big guns". Some people have tried to expand that definition so that the South Carolina's aren't called dreadnoughts because of their triple-expansion engines.
• Provide a link to super-fire so that readers can see exactly what is meant by that term.
• Don't forget that the Italians modernized their battleships as well during the Thirties.
• Guilio Cesare wasn't sunk by a mine in the Black Sea.
• A mention of Stalin's BBs might be in orders, as well as a mention that the Soviet BB's were limited to gunfire support during WW2.
• There's been no discussion of battlecruisers so why are Goeben/Yavuz, and the Soviet BC's even mentioned when the disposal of BB's is listed?

The External link checker in the tools show a geocities.com source, which isn't likely to be reliable. I'll check back with more items as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Is combinedfleet.com a reliable source? And there are unformatted citation, sample:

  ^ [1] Defence power: developments of the decade

• Also, check image captions for punctuation, per WP:MOS#Captions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, nobody believes anything I say, and think that I'm rampaging around vandalising and trashing everything (probably people give me these jobs as a poisoned chalice so I can take the blame or whatever as people think I'm a troll, and my opinions were never hidden), but whatever, I'll rant. Sandy went and posted warnings to the talk pages of articles with five different tags on them: Wikipedia:Featured_articles/Cleanup_listing. The number of variety of tags is not a good rank of FA-endangeredness. A lot of the articles high up on that list are well-cited, which is why the odd uncited sentence sticks out and is usually tagged for cites, whereas a lot of heavily citation-lacking articles like Fauna of Australia aren't, because there is no point in tagging almost every sentence. Bodyline has four problems listed, but only four sentences are unaccounted for. Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport and Rail transport in India were removed for having 75%+ home-made or non-independent sources, but neither have any tags. A lot of the weakest articles sent to FAR had little/no tags before they were nominated; I mean most unreferenced start-class articles (and thus FAs), nobody adds everywhere. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly likely to be the first one targeted. Most of the ones at FAR are the least cited ones, with about 30%+ completely uncited paragraphs. There are few who don't go from the worst articles, but most do. And in any case, there are hundreds worse than this, although they haven't been littered with tags. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Brad 101

This article needs a ton of work to put it lightly. There isn't much to be gained by pointing out things that need fixing. Pretend you're at start class and go from there. The original FAC didn't appear to be an overwhelming vote of confidence for this article and that was two years ago. If I were assessing this article today I would feel guilty giving it a B as there are entire paragraphs and one complete section without cites. --Brad (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Land

Fundamentally, the article needs to be rewritten, section-by-section, as a summary of Ironclad warship, pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, and treaty battleship. I regret I don't have the time at the moment to do this. The Land (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Montana class battleship

Previous Peer Review is here

Its been about a year since this article made FA, and now its time for its annual peer review. This is a routine maintenance peer review, I do not expect the article content to have shifted drastically since the FAC last year, but I am open to any suggestions for improvement. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.

Hi, Tom, just a couple of points:

• There are a couple of sentences at the end of paragraphs, and a paragrah or two themselves, that a without a cite and could probably do with one.
• As there are so many actual notes contained in the "Notes" section among the citations, it might be worth separating them into two different sections; one "Notes" and the other "Footnotes" or some such.
• If possible, it would be best if a few more of the images were aligned to the left, as the majority currently sit to the right.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ed!

Same, just a few things to point out.

• The "Armament" section is the main place without citations. Some paragraphs could use more thorough citations while others (such as the first paragraph in the section) aren't cited at all.
• The books in the "References" and "Further Reading" sections should be put into {{cite book}} templates.
• I see a few links that appear multiple times in the article (Iowa-class, Battle of Midway, etc.) I would suggest skimming through the article's links again and making sure each link only appears once.

-Ed!^(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cam

Just a few things here and there

• Yamato and Musashi need to be wikilinked in the third paragraph of "history"
• Could the Panama canal restrictions be worked into the article a bit earlier (or at least mentioned in more explicit detail in the "design" section)?

Can't find anything else worth mentioning. Still a superb Featured Article. Well done! Cam ^(Chat) 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

List of aircraft carrier classes of the United States Navy

I have done a lot of work to this article, and I wanted to know what needed to be done for it to be A- or FL-class material. Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 21:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

Patar knight

A couple of points:

• The intro should start off mentioning the actual subject (US Aircraft Carriers) from the first paragraph, rather than going straight into a description of US Aircraft carrier history, which is confusing for readers, and doesn't provide a good summary
• The section headers are misleading. Most people would expect Yorktown to be in the WWII section. Also, the Pre-World War II section contains information on Pearl Harbour, which definitely during the war.
• In the WWII section, "On September 2, 1945, Japan signed the surrender agreement abroad the USS Missouri, ending World War II.[9]" does not pertain to Aircraft Carriers whatsoever, unless its paired with some factoid (e.g. By the time Japan...ending WWII, the United States had x amount of active carriers).
• The "Escort Carriers" section should be a sub-section of WWII, since all the escort carriers are from that time frame.

--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

PKKloeppel

According to mynameinc, the person who requested this review no longer intends to edit Wikipedia articles, presumably including also this one. It is clear that he has not responded to Patar knight in more than two weeks. I have made some of the changes suggested by Patar knight, but have neither the time nor the resources to do a good job. Either someone else will have to jump in and do it, or we should forget about it. PKKloeppel (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

From a logistical standpoint, the review will be getting archived at some point, once it drops to the bottom of the review list. I'm not sure there's any benefit to explicitly ending it before that point; even if nobody is actively making the suggested changes, the list of suggestions may prove useful to future editors in and of itself. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy

I have done a lot of work on this article, and I wanted to know: what needs to be done for it to be A- or FL-class material? Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66

You might want to expand on the flush-decker explanation; I don't find flat-deck anything close to a reasonable translation. I'd explain that they lacked the forecastle used by most contemporary ships and this single deck from stem to stern was called a flush deck in naval terminology. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

 DoneThanks, do that tomorrow. Did you notice anything else wrong? mynameinc (t|c|p) 03:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC) If anybody notices anything else wrong, please tell me here, the article talk, or my talk page. Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 17:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

McComb

I perceive your approach is to compress multiple linkable source articles into a single article as a framework for your table. I am not a regular Wikipedian and only by accident discovered this page; also, I lack time for much more than review -- but in the interest of historical accuracy, I'm all in favor of seeing this done well. Accordingly, I took the liberty of making some edits of my own last week but misemphases remain. I'd be pleased to offer comment in the spirit of continuing education in lieu of making further edits of my own; is that what you're looking for? If yes, would it useful to point you toward resources other than what's available on the web? If no, would you tolerate reworking of some sections? I ask the question as the author of many of the articles you've cited in your REFERENCES and I'd be willing to work with you if we could find an efficient way. McComb (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Kumioko

I think its a very good list with plenty of references and good explanations. I would totally support it for a Featured list. I only have a couple comments and they are relatively minor.

• You need to put alt text in the images. Alt text has been around for a while but is being enforced now so you will need that.
• You have a DAB link for Bulwark that needs to be fixed.
• I checked all the references and look good to go except for 34, 36, 45, 54 and 59 need accessdates.
• I ran the article through the Autoed tool and it didn't find anything meaningful.
• I ran the article through AWB and it didn't find anything either. --Kumioko (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

German battleship Bismarck

This article is one of the most famous warships of World War II, and as such, should be at a much higher quality level than it currently is. I am requesting this peer review to bring in outside eyes to help those of us who have been working on the article, so that we can improve it and eventually reach FA. In many areas, lack of sourcing is a problem; I'm more concerned with the soundness of the prose, whether there are any POV issues (Bismarck has both fan and detractor crowds), etc. Thanks for all comments in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D

Here are my comments:

• The 'Background' section should probably include a brief summary of her design
• The article doesn't cover the period between her commissioning and Operation Rheinübung - information on her trials, crewing, officers, training exercises, etc would be interesting
• I think that the coverage of Operation Rheinübung is too detailed - this really belongs in the dedicated article
• The photos are very well chosen, but could some photos of the ship on the sea bed also be included under a fair use claim?
• Does there need to be a dedicated section to the ship's war diary?
• I think that the 'References in the Wehrmachtbericht' section should be removed (and possibly moved to Wikisource?) as it doesn't add anything to the article which shouldn't already be in the prose.
• Information about what happened to the crew who were rescued would be interesting. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of Nick's comments, especially about the one about the Wehrmachtbericht. But I will note that the discussion about the loss of the Hood needs to be cited. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett

Having reread the start of the article, I changed "Background" to "Building and commissioning" this made more sense in the context of a single ship than background. the section could use some attention:

1. Plan Z and Bismarck's part in it is split across the two paragraphs - there's sort of a half repeat of information which could probably be phrased better.
2. use as a commerce raider - it would be good to know when the decision was taken, but more so if functioning as a commerce raider she would be aided by other ships. The section states that she could tackle a battleship on convoy escort, but what of the remainder of a convoy's warships (eg cruisers and destroyers)- its left open as to whether Bismarck would be unable to tackle these as well or would be aided.

Her operational history

I personally would trim some of the detail, provided it remains in the relevant articles, so that her (brief) service is more readable. There are a number of digressions eg in on Norwegian agents. Some parts could be precised eg on the Bergen stop "Both German ships ..... British air surveillance." could be precised to

"It had been intended for both ships to refuel in Bergen. Prinz Eugen did so but Bismarck did not; their next refuelling would be from an oiler that was waiting in the Arctic at least one day's sailing away. Stopping in Bergen cost him a day and gave the British the opportunity to detect them."

Rediscovery
This section could have a simple precis before launching into the various subsections.

Wehrmachtbericht
the section adds the quotes but without any context as to what the Wehrmachtbericht was and to why these references were important, or what the reaction was to them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Simon Harley

My knowledge of Bismarck is limited to Breyer, a D. K. Brown/Garzke/Dullin article on her rediscovery, Preston's The World's Worst Warships and the Mearns book on Hood and Bismarck, and kicking around somewhere I have Ballard's memoirs and the relevant chapter on Bismarck, so I won't comment on the technical aspects of the article.

• The Rediscovery section confuses the hell out of me. The most obvious problem is "Ballard's third expedition" - when was his second? When was the third, since its date is not mentioned in the article proper? And how some of the sources, supposedly written in 1990, can have a bearing on this section is beyond me. Can someone with the knowledge sort this out? --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 10:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AHS Centaur

The article on AHS Centaur was promoted to Featured Article status just short of two years ago. In that time, there have been changes to the article, plus alterations to and tightening of the FA criteria. I would like to know if the article still meets the FA criteria, and if not, what needs to be done. -- saberwyn 08:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For reference:

• The previous peer review (from February 2007) is here.
• The A class review (from May 2007) is here.
• The Featured Article Candidate discussion (which resulted in the article's promotion to FA in June 2007) is here.

the ed17

• Comment - I've just read through the entire article, and I am amazed that it is in such good shape for a 2-year old FA. However, I have a major query: at the end of the "Attacker" section, it seems to imply/say that Nakagawa might not have been the attacker (as there was not enough evidence. However, the rest of the article, namely the "Reasons for attack" section, advances the viewpoint that Nakagawa was the commander. If this was intentional, I apologize, but just a thought. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nakagawa was the commander of I-177 at the time of the attack, but that submarine was one of three that were in the area at the time and could have attacked Centaur. In the immediate aftermath (during the war crimes tribunals), there wasn't enough evidence to prove which of these submarines was responsible. The publication of the War History Series in 1979 indicated that I-177, with Nakagawa commanding, was the responsible submarine, and all of the sources on the attack I have seen accept this as fact.

That said, any suggestions on how it could be made clearer? -- saberwyn 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that information (that Nakagawa was almost certainly the commander) could be added at the end of the "Attacker" section? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite the "Attacker" section, partly to make the identifying of Nakagawa clearer, and partly because I think that section could be a little better structured. It will take me a little while because I don't have access to some of the sources used at the moment. I'll notify here when its done. -- saberwyn 07:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) The "Attacker" section has been rewritten, and tweakes have been made to the "Reasons for Attack" section. Hopefully this clarifies things. -- saberwyn 07:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

I've formated the citations. I'll look at the prose more carefully soon YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Guyinblack25

Quite an informative article, and one that looks to have stood the test of time. I haven't finished reading the article, but here are the issues which stood out to me.

• Terms like keel, stern, and draft (hull) should be wikilinked for readers unfamiliar with the topic, such as myself.
• Per Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images, images should not be left aligned directly under level 3 headings to prevent a break between the heading and the prose. I would either right align them or move them a paragraph or two down closer to the most relevant text.
• This is more a preferred style issue, but there are several instances where consecutive sentences both use the same citation. I've always tried consolidating them to cover groups of sentences. That's just me though.
• The "Military reaction" section starts with a single sentence paragraph. I'd integrate it with the following paragraph.
• The first sentence of "Official protests" is a bit confusing with its comma usage. The list of groups involved in the consultation is the culprit. It might benefit from splitting the sentence in two.

I'll finish up tomorrow. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

In order

1. Examples given linked at first appearance in the text.
2. Images dropped down or moved elsewhere in the article.
3. I'm the opposite... I prefer attaching citations to every sentance so that readers know that that particular sentance can be verified by that particular citation.
4. Problem is, the first sentance describes the general reaction from military personnel, while the subsequent paragraph describes a reaction to the attack by the military as an organisation, and it doesn't seem right to strap that sentance to the front one of one. Thoughts?
5. Done. How does it read now?

Looking forward to the rest of your observations. -- saberwyn 23:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Round two-

• I'm no military expert, but I don't see much difference between the reaction of an organization and the reaction of its members. They're different levels of military, but still military. I'd say the amount of overlap outweighs the differences. That's just me though.
  The only other suggestion I have is to expand on the content of the servicemen's reaction. One or two more sentences would be all that's needed (if there's any available).
• Under the "Reasons for attack" section, second sentence of the second paragraph, I believe a semi-colon should be used instead of a colon. "...until reaching the Great Barrier Reef:; her course keeping..."
• Under the "Nakagawa unaware" section, should 'unfortunate accident' use double quotes instead of single? I assume this might be another difference of styles.
• Under "Memorials", I'd wikilink cairn.
• I would reorder the "Memorials" section chronologically.
• After reading the whole article, the lead feels a bit off. Specifically how it jumps right into its attack, then summarizes the article. I don't really have any suggestions, and assume its more just a difference of style.

Quite a fine article. It was a pleasure to read and very informative. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Round two replies

1. Here's an example of what I mean. You and your colleages walk into work after a good weekend, to find that your workplace has been destroyed, equipment vandalised, etc. You and your colleages are likely to be angered and annoyed. Your company is likely to review security proceedures and contact the police to begin an investigation. That said, I like the idea of adding a few more lines to evolve it into a paragraph, and am hunting for possible sources.
2. Agreed, done.
3. In my understanding of Australian English, single quotes are for emphasis and double quotes are for quotations. Having read the relevant sentace, I don't think there should be any quote marks at all as it could be intended as scare quotes (that may have been my intention when I originally wrote it, but if so, its not appropriate per NPOV), and have removed them.
4. Done
5. No answer at this moment in time, need to have a think about it Done, how does it look now? -- saberwyn 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
6. The reason the attack is mentioned straight off the bat is that it is the key reason why the ship is notable. Per Wikipedia:Lead_section#First_sentence, the subject of the article and why it is notable should be clearly identified as early as possible.

-- saberwyn 02:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I only saw two other minor issues:

• Should this be semicolon instead of a colon? "...by other Allied personnel:; United States Army Air Force General..."
• I would add a {{-}} tag at the end of the "Memorials" section so the picture doesn't run into the footnotes.

Article looks great, like it could weather a couple more years. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Saberwyn-closing

I'm closing this peer review as I will be unable to react to suggestions after this weekend for about a month. I would like to thank everyone who has expressed a view here, and hope the changes made to the article are satisfatory enough for AHS Centuar to retain FA status. Any further observations or comments are more than welcome at the article's talk page. -- saberwyn 23:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

HMS Endeavour

After much expansion this managed to get to GA late last year, and I'm interested in suggestions for further improvement. Any and all comments and opinions welcomed. Euryalus (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Benea

Comment - Why is the article at HM Bark Endeavour and not HMS Endeavour (1768), per WP:Naming conventions (ships)? Benea (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• For no better reason than I foolishly rewrote it without paying enough attention to the naming guideline. Happy to move it but one question - this Endeavour is significantly better known than any others of the same name. Following the naming logic here, this article should presumably be at HMS Endeavour with the disambiguation page moved to HMS Endeavour (disambiguation). What do you think? Euryalus (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. I've no objection to doing it that way. We use that convention sparingly (only 3 times in the RN), but I think this is a reasonable example of 'most well known ship of that name'. Benea (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding, based on volunteering as a tour guide at the Australian National Maritime Museum, where the Endeavour replica is docked, is that HM Bark or HMB is the prefix formally associated with Endeavour in this day and age...see these [1][2][3] museum pages on HMB Endeavour (the third page also claims that all surviving Admiralty documents refer to the ship as Bark Endeavour). However, HMS Endeavour seems to be in more common usage: Google Books searches for each name plus "Captain Cook" (to filter out false positives) came up with 8 for HMB, 155 for HM Bark, and 511 for HMS. Do with this information what you will. -- saberwyn 06:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional. Looking at some of the books from the Google Book searches, a few make the claim that this ship was called HM Bark because the previous HMS Endeavour (1763), a sloop, was still operating.[4][5] -- saberwyn 06:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, J.J. Colledge also lists her as 'Endeavour Bark'. The situation of having ships of the same name in service at the same time is all too common for the Endeavours. Three ships of that name entered service in 1694 (a bomb vessel, a fire ship and a hoy), and two in 1763 (a sloop and a cutter). The prefix of 'HMS' only enters usage towards the end of the eighteenth century, and only for ship-rigged vessels, that were actually 'His Majesty's Ship...'. Other vessels would be referred to as 'His Majesty's sloop ...', 'His Majesty's cutter...', or 'His Britannic Majesty's cutter ...' and so on. HMS Ark Royal (1587) would never have been referred to be her contemporaries as 'HMS Ark Royal', just Ark Royal. Since our convention is to standardise and backdate military prefixes, an RN ship named Endeavour and acquired/launched in 1652 would be titled 'HMS Endeavour (1652)'. If we were titling this article to fit our conventions it would be at 'HMS Endeavour (1768)', or 'HMS Endeavour' if we decided that this one vessel clearly fitted the 'most well known ship of the name' clause. We had a similar situation not too long ago with the Bounty (HMAV Bounty, HM armed vessel Bounty or HMS Bounty?) that saw the article settled at HMS Bounty. Benea (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As an idle addition, Cook himnself formally referred to it as "His Most Britannick Majesty's Bark Endeavour" in is journal, but most commonly simply called it Endeavour with no prefixes. Euryalus (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Per what might be a mild consensus here, I've been bold and moved the pages. I think this fits well with the ships naming convention:

• the article name should use "HMS" even where that prefix was not yet in common use (ie it can be backdated);
• where there are multiple ships of the same name they should be separated by year of construction, but where one is overwhelmingly the best known of that name it can be recorded simply as the actual name (for a similar example, HMS Victory); and
• The general naming convention at WP:NAME recommends using the most common modern name for the article subject. The most common modern name for this ship is unarguably HMS Endeavour, despite that not being the name she was registered under and the terminology not yet being in general use.

Obviously if there is objection to the move let me know and I'll move it back while discussion continues. Euryalus (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a very good article. My comments are:

• I suggest that you specify that Endeavour was the first European ship to reach NZ since Abel Tasman as it is likely that Polynesian ships reached NZ in this period
• This might be a myth, but I've read that Cook selected Endeavour on the basis of his previous experience with colliers on England's east coast - is this correct?
• "what is now known as Botany Bay" should read "what he later named Botany Bay" given that it was Cook who provided this name
• The article should mention that Cook proclaimed sovereignty over Australia at Possession Island en-route to Batavia
• The ship is referred to as both 'she' and 'it'; my understanding of Wikipedia's convention on this matter is that both are acceptable but that usage should be consistent in each article
• I'm not sure if the Hessian soldiers should be referred to as mercenaries - Hessian (soldiers) says that they were and weren't mercenaries though, so it isn't much help!
• There are some PD paintings of Endeavour on the National Library of Australia's website which can be accessed via [6]
• Is it worth noting that the Space Shuttle Endeavour was named after the ship? (along with three different RNZN ships, countless streets in Australia and NZ, etc). Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, some responses in order of the above:

•  Done
•  Done - It's a myth, though an enduring one. Cook would have been familiar with colliers as an apprentice in Whitby but the Admiralty bought the Earl of Pembroke when the proposed commander was still Dalrymple, and before Cook had been suggested. The article doesn't really make this clear as I was trying to focus on the ship rather than the captain, but if there's a view its worth including I'll think of a way to work it in.
•  Done
• Thanks, will have a look at working this in. Done
•  Done
• Hmmm ... will have to do some background reading on Hessians. Done
•  Done Great pictures, thanks for finding these. The article relies too heavily on images of the replica instead of the real thing, so I'll swap some around over the next few days. I've added one image from NLA, and requested another via email. Most of the images viewable online are either maps or of Banks' flora collection, which I'll see if I can work into related articles.
• Possibly in the relics or replica section at the end? Will see where it might fit Not done After some reflection I'd prefer to leave the hatnote as the principal link to these other uses. The article sticks fairly closely to the exact topic, being the original ship, and only moves away in the (perhaps unnecessary) replica section. The Space Shuttle is the most prominent thing named after Endeavour, but there's also a range of place names, various other ships and so on. Obviously, omitting the Space shuttle from this article this is a personal opinion - other views welcome.

Overall, thanks for the great feedback, let me know if there's anything else seems worth improving here. Euryalus (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Patton123

This is a great article, the current structure is great and I'm sure it will make FA soon enough. I saw no concerns major enough to put here, but there are quite a few little prose slip-ups and i suggest getting a good copyeditor from our logistics department to help you out there.--Patton^t/c 13:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a WP:SHIPS PR with a redirect at MILHIST, Patton is referring to MILHIST's logistics department: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics -MBK₀₀₄ 18:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Euryalus (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

saberwyn

Random question, should the ship be referred to as "the Endeavour". I was always under the impression that referring to a British ship as "the Foo" was incorrect. -- saberwyn 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You would be correct. There was a conversation at one time about not having "the" before ship names. --Brad (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done by Saberwyn.

Brad101

• Your photos are not following the MOS. It basically means that pics starting at the top of the article should run right/left/right/left etc but no left aligned pics directly under a ===subsection===. With the exception of the infobox photo, all others should be set to |thumb| only; no |XXXpx|.
• Your references need work. Any of the books used in this article should be moved down to a bibliography section using {{cite book}} with the inline citations denoting page numbers. --Brad (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, will address these in the next few days. Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Done - I also added the RIMAP paper to the bibliography, as its cited so often that moving it "declutters" the refs. Not sure if this presents a format problem. Euryalus (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

USS Kentucky (BB-66)

This is a routine matience peer review, this article hasn't been reviewed for a little over a year now, and this peer review has been filed to ensure that the article is still up to FA standards. I welcome any comments or questions on how to improve the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• First things first, you can deal with this: clarification tag. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wandalstouring

The clarification mentioned above is needed and citations for the facts in the infobox. Otherwise it looks good. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Patton123

It looks great. One or two things which I'll fix myself, though I'll list them here anyway:

• "the 15th state" in the lead should say "Kentucky" IMO.
• "to escort the new Essex-class aircraft carriers that were coming out", changed "coming out" to "being built".

Apart from that definitly FA :-)--Patton^t/c 20:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Australian light destroyer project

I posted this article on a failed Australian project to develop a class of small destroyers yesterday, and would appreciate comments on how to develop the article. I'm interested in taking this to A-class and possibly FA class, so any comments on how to work towards those standards would be particularly appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• No comments on the article as yet, but you may want to have a look for Vic Cassells' The Destroyers. I recall there being a few pages about this project in there that may be of use. -- saberwyn 23:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Cassells, Vic (2000). The Destroyers: their battles and their badges. East Roseville, NSW: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0731808932. OCLC 46829686.

Ian Rose

I have no experience of writing ship-related articles, only reviewing a few at ACR and FAC level, but it seems to me that the basic structure is sound and the prose and citations well up to scratch, though presumably more detail would be expected for higher levels. If no pictures exist of the design of the DDL, I guess any available pics of the ships it was supposed to replace, i.e. River and Daring Class, and the FFGs that took their place, would be worthwhile. I might just add as a personal anecdote (no names, no pack drill) that I could relate to the bit about the Perry design being considered second rate - the general impression I gained from contracting at GI a few years ago was that the FFGs were perceived as little more than cannon fodder... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments Ian. There are drawings of the final DDL design in Ross Gillet's book and the 1972-73 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships, but I can't find anything online. I don't think that it's considered acceptable to scan photos in from books then claiming fair use, which is a shame as the design was quite interesting. Seeing as the FFGs had a similar armament and displacement to the DDL (though with one propeller rather than the DDL's two), I'm personally not sure why the Navy regarded them as being so greatly inferior. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Timeline for aircraft carrier service

I intend to attempt to promote this to a Featured List. I have completed the main tasks as I see it for the list and would appreciate any advice about how the article could be improved to make it a suitable FL candidate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input so far. I do not intend to argue about these points, rather I will explain my thoughts about why I did it the way I did if it seems relevent. I understand that the comments are intended to be constructive and I take them as as such. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

Firsly, with the frequently refreenced books, you are suposed to put the book list in a spearate section and then cite specific pages, like "DANFS, p. 10." and so forth, instead of having over 200 footnotes just linking to a book which probably has hundreds of pages.

More later. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks YM. Where the reference is a book I have done exactly as you decribed. However, with refs like DANFS, NVR and Haze Grey & Underway and so on, I have provided a link to the main web page or in the case of HG&U the main page for the country in question, from which it is easy to find the relevent ship by following the links on that web page. I could convert these all to individual links for each ship, but I thought that that approach would only serve to unnecessarily expand the References section without really providing more information. I look forward to your further thoughts on this. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett

The external links is in the wrong place. Questionable use of colour for active totals in each year. The formatting of these totals changes from cross to downward - how about a mini-table instead? Over detailed - "laid down" "launched" and "commissioned" dates given for each ship - how about just when the batch were ordered and individuals entered service.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme. I have moved the external links. I used colour to visually separate the force strength figures from the rest of the time line, since thay are calculated from the information within the timeline itself (the inclusion of these figures was a suggestion by another editor), rather than being something that I sourced from an external reference. I have always been ambiguous about them, as I wonder whether it could be classed as OR. OTOH, the info is from referenced material on the page, so I have left them in. The change in format was for the duration of WWII. This was because each year's set of listing was so long that it is unlikely that any reader would be able to see the previous year's figures and the current one under consideration at the same time and also so I could include the figures for ships sunk and commissioned during the hostilities. I'm not wedded to either the figures or the formatting I have used, I would be interested in what other editors think as well. As for reducing the number of entries for each ship, this could be done, but it would involve a fair amount of work (not a reason not to do it, though). Again, I would be interested to know what others think. Also, thanks for the copyedit on the intro. (Plus I will see if I can source the comment about the size of US air groups.) - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Graeme, I have reworded the sentence that you tagged in the intro. Do you think it still needs a citation? I would think that what it now says was pretty uncontroversial. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Harlsbottom

The structure of the article has already been commented on. There are some glaring omissions, for example the Tondern raid and the Revolt of the Admirals. The reference to the Admiralty turning down the Wright Brothers' offer in 1907 is a gross misinterpretation of the truth. The Admiralty actually turned down an offer for the patents to their aircraft, but the designs at the time were of such poor endurance that they would have been worthless for naval aviation. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 11:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank for the info. I will insert an entry for the Tonden raid, but I am not sure about the revolt of the admirals - what date would this go under? It seems to have been a progressive thing over a number of years, which makes it hard to pin down on a timeline. If you think of any other pertinent dates that need to be inserted please let me know, but remember that this is not meant to be a complete history of naval aviation and the non-ship related items are supplementary to the main point of the list. As for the comment about the Admiralty and the Wright Bros, the entry on the timeline is virtually a direct quote from the reference. It is is stated as being "according to legend" and I can confirm that the entry reflects how I heard about it when I served in the RAN Fleet Air Arm back in the 70s and 80s. Like many things, the legend may not be exactly what actually occurred, but I have only reported the legend. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the key section of the message from the First Lord of the Admiralty to the Wright Brothers, dated 7 March, 1907, taken from The Old Flying Days by Charles Cyril Turner, p. 293:

"I have consulted my expert advisers with regard to your suggestion as to the employment of aeroplanes and I regret to have to tell you, after the careful consideration of my Board, that the Admiralty, whilst thanking you for so kindly bringing the proposals to their notice, are of opinion that they would not be of any practical use to the Naval Service."

The key phrase there is "practical use". It was another two years before a plane could fly thirty odd miles across the English Channel. At the time the Admiralty believed that balloons and airships would be of more use to the Navy, and who is to say that they were wrong? --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 15:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added a footnote with this quotation, I have not removed the original text, because that is how the story is usually related in the Fleet Air Arm as stated in the reference. I think this way it covers both aspects. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would respectfully submit that the Australian Naval Aviation Museum is talking out of its behind, but that's not a discussion for Wikipedia: I will raise it with them directly [EDIT: Or I would if the website of "Australia's Museum of Flight" (formerly the Australian Naval Aviation Museum) was working]. I loathe legend being included in most works of history, as in many cases including this one it serves to obscure the truth. Your amendment and note is most welcome, however. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 14:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Let me think about it for a little while. BTW, I have found the following (postal) contact information for the ANAM: Australian Naval Aviation Museum Society, P.O.Box A15 Naval Post Office Nowra, New South Wales, 2540, Australia - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick - will give the website a couple of days to see if it comes online again. If not will use the address you provided. Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 02:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

the_ed17

• God do I hate myself right now...becuase you use this site a lot in the article...but Hazegray was determined to be an unreliable source in a FAC of mine... :/ I have no objection to it being in, say, an A-class article, because I have never seen wrong info there, but I'm decently sure that it won't fly at FL... :( —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads up. I would have to say that it was my least favourite reference, but for many countries (and depressingly so for the UK, there are not a lot of other sites around that actually have the info. Oh well, maybe I will have to go and dig up some more copies of Jane's! - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry again :/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Mjroots

I've mentioned this on the talk page of the article, but the list makes no mention of merchant aircraft carriers such as Empire MacAlpine and CAM ships such as Empire Darwin. Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified this in the article. Basically these ships are out of scope. Maybe someone else might like to create a similar timeline for those classes, if it seems necessary. I've still got a lot to do with this timeline if I'm going to replace all the Haze Gray references. By the time I've done that I think I will have had quite enough. Nick Thorne ^talk 13:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure they are out of scope. An aircraft carrier is a ship that carries (an) aircraft. MAC's at least had the facility for aircraft to land back on the ship. Thus it would seem that a brief mention at least is justified. Mjroots (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

According to a quick look at the relevant articles in Wikipedia, there were 19 MAC and 35 CAM ships. If we are to include those, surely we would also need to include the escort carriers of which there were 130, since they were actually commissioned naval vessels, unlike the MAC ans CAM ships. Given that the current timeline lists approximately 160 ships and is quite long enough as it is - possible too long - I do not propose to add these ships to the timeline. The line has to be drawn somewhere. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

Some firsts seem to be missing (or I missed them)

• 1st Helicopter landing
• 1st helicopter carrier
• 1st sunk by enemy action (surface to surface) / (air to surface)
• last sunk etc
• 1st air to air victory from XXXXX

A good article and you can se that a lot of work has gone into - I note you have not included the ordering of HMS Queen LIZ and HMS P.O.W is that because like many of us you do not believe they will begin construction ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I'll see if I can look those events up and include them. I have not mentioned the QE class ships because the first entry for any ship I have used throughout has been the keel laying. So far as I am aware, the Poms have not yet cut any steel for these ships. I guess we'll just have to wait and see whether they really do eventuate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ship Gun Fire Control Systems

This peer review is filed on behalf of Bachcell (talk · contribs), who added the tab to the {{WPMILHIST}} template but did not create the page. I have left a message on his talk page inviting him to clarify what exactly he wishes to get out of the peer review, and with luck we will have that info shortly. In the mean time though any input anyone can offer as to the improvement of the article would be appreciated. TomStar810 (Talk) 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Land

My first thoughts are that this article could go in two directions. It could either become an article about naval fire control as a comprehensive subject, or it could become List of U.S. Navy Gun Fire Control Systems... at present it is closer to the latter. The Land (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Since everyone is saying roughly the same thing, and the person who opened the peer review has not yet put in an appearance, perhaps we should stop the peer reviewing until they turn up? The Land (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Harlsbottom

I would go along with removing HACS and making it a U.S. list. Then at least there will be a good article on U.S. fire control equipment. It would be exceedingly difficult to do a comprehensive article on naval fire control due to the many varied methods and types of equipment used in so many navies over a century, a lot of which isn't very well documented. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 16:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett

this article has no real background nor overview of a timeline, and nothing happened before 1941? so its just a list with details at the moment. As HACS has its own article (word for word?) it could be lifted out and this would be a fully US list. Some backfeed from here to Fire_control_system#Naval_fire_control would be good though. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tartarus

After a once over and checking the dab and external links, I find that the refs are good, but there are only a few of them, so refs need to be found. Also, there are to many images on the article for the small amount of information that is provided. I think that this article needs to have a choice mad about it, per The Land. TARTARUS ^talk 23:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wandalstouring

It doesn't present a worldwide view on the subject. I do have strong doubts that other nations didn't develop such systems until now. Please rename and move the article to reflect its US-centrism and the limited time range. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bachcell

Thanks for the feedback, it started as just the MK 37, then its successors, then I thought it might be good to throw in the British one, since one source contrasted as an example of a bad fire control system in comparison to the US system. You may note that last system, and the one for the Bofors 40 are Americanizations of European systems. Computer-aided fire control system pretty much started before WWII with the MK 37 as far as my research takes me. Something else is that as major a contribution that this makes, it's usually left out of the list of weapons for ships, but there's a big difference between a destroyer which had the MK 37 for its 5 in guns and the escort destroyers and carriers which did not have the MK 37. The MK 37 made a huge difference in effectiveness in Leyte Gulf when little destroyers got in hundreds of hits before cruisers or battleships landed their first punches and American flyers remarked how much anti-aircraft fire they could put up without hitting anything. Bachcell (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Still US-centric. Try a worldwide view or a story of US or NATO systems. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Analogue computers puts Arthur Pollen's Argo at 1912, I suspect the US had something similar before reaching Mark 37 (36 others?) GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That statement on Analog computer is very wishy-washy and probably false (just checking my sources then I'll go amend it). The Argo Clock Mark IV wasn't ready until mid-1912 and saw limited use in the Royal Navy. It was the Mark V, a very different device actually finished in late 1913, which was delivered to the Imperial Russian Navy in very limited numbers. As usual someone is talking out their hat. This ignores for convenience the Dreyer-Elphinstone devices, which were contemporaries of the Argo devices and more capable. See John Brooks Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland: The Question of Fire Control.

The U.S.N. didn't get a proper fire-control computer until after the First World War, inspired by Pollen, but designed and manufactured by Hannibal Ford. Norman Friedman covers U.S. developments relatively competently in the recent book Naval Firepower. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 13:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

USS Missouri (BB-63)

First Peer Review Second Peer Review

By accidentall oversight its been more than two years since this article has seen any type of community attention, so I am submitting this article for Peer Review ahead of a needed FAR to address any issues that may need to be fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight

Alright, pretty good article. Couple of minor suggestions:

• In the introduction, US Navy and United States Navy are redundant. The first could be removed, and the second linked.

• In the "Service with the 3rd Fleet, Admiral Halsey" section, 2nd paragraph, the first link to Honshu is in a better position to be linked then the second one.

• In "Signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender", the first link to Honshu could be linked.

• Redirect Navy Day in the Post-war section to the correct sub-section.

• In the same section, "both nations' independence.[4]" doesn't seem to refer to two nations at all. I'm guessing that it's referring to Greece and Turkey?

• In the Korean section the "Republic of Korea." is not previously mentioned, and could lead to confusion among readers

• "In an effort to dissuade U.N. forces from completely overrunning North Korea the People's Republic of China", comma after Korea.

• Same section, Link to Mark Wayne Clark ("sailed thence to Sasebo, Japan. General Mark W. Clark,")

Good job on this article, and good luck on the FAR. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

USS Illinois (BB-65)

This is a routine maintenance peer review, its been a year since MBK004 and I got this article up to FA standards, and given the unprecedented drama from the combined FACs I am in no eager mood to try for an FAR, so I'm subbing a peer review instead. I doubt that anything major has shifted in the article since last year, however I am open to ideas for improvement. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The_ed17

• "...carrying guns of up to 18 in (457.2 mm)" and "...intended armament of twelve 16 in (406.4 mm)"
  • 18/16 in long, right?
• Can we de-link the units of weight (e.g. "in", "mm", "kg"?
• "5 in (127 mm)/54 caliber DP mounts" is an ugly and long link...
• Clarify: does BB-65 = USS Montana in the beginning?
• Ref 18 is dead.
• Ref 19 needs an access date.

Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectively:

• <sigh> THIS is what happens when "anyone" can edit an encyclopedia. Good catch.
• I am not sure if we can delink the units of measurement, the templates may auto link those for ease of reference.
• I'll see about shortening it.
• Yes it does.
• I'll see if I can resurrect it
• Should be from around the time of the FA push, but I will plug in todays date when I get around to it.

- TomStar81 (Talk) 04:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• • (@delink) I know you can somehow, I just don't remember how. :) Look at {{convert}}. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

More comments (were originally posted on the talk page)

• Page numbers: #5 and 19
• Format: #19
• Dead link?: #11
• RS's?: #11, 14
• Access date: #16
• Link to the picture? #8
• What's with the "Bibliography"? I added that header today, but is it accurate? Should it be "Further reading"?
  • And you need some ISBNs, etc, for those books...
• —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Armament of the Iowa class battleship

Its been almost two years since this article went through any sort of review process; this was an oversight on my part since of the Iowa class articles this one is the only one that has been rewritten by someone other than me (FTC Gerry (talk · contribs)). The article is aesthetically iffy, but is still well sourced and should pass through an impending FAR with relative ease; to better the chances though I am opening a peer review prior to the FAR so that I can split the anticipated workload some.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Saberwyn

The first thing that comes to mind is the redlinked "Katie" nukes in the lead section... could a short article or a redirect to an appropriate target be created?

Also, I think it would be beneficial to alternate the placement of images, and may also be an idea to either remove the image size hardcoding (i.e. the |foopx| section of the image string) or standardise the image sizing. At the moment, there appears to be several image sizes in use as well as the un-hardcoded thumbnail size, and this, combined with the all-right placement, is putting some serious chunks of artificial white space into the article.

Feel free to address each point directly, instead of addressing them all below this point. I also reserve the right to add more observations at any time. -- saberwyn 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

W19 (nuclear artillery shell) refers to "...a nuclear artillery shell for the US Navy 16 inch (406 mm) battleship guns, the W23" - it isn't discussed at any length, but this is probably the appropriate target, and there's already a redirect at W23 (nuclear artillery shell). A link in the "Ammunition" section as well as the lead would probably help. Shimgray | talk | 16:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

AshLin

(Moved from talk page) AshLin (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Please convert red link Katie to a stub or transclude it to an existing weapon article. (already pointed out above).
2. The capitalisation of section/subsection appears to be inconsistent.
3. Perhaps a section on how the weapons were when the ship was commissioned and how the weapons were replaced or updated to give a brief overall picture would be useful. A timeline in prose so to say, somewehere early in the article.
4. The Tomahawk and Harpoon sections seem to have too much detail on the working of the missile. Perhaps it could be pruned and {{main|articlename}} templates be used for each weapon system having a dedicated article of its own.
5. A small section on the performance of the battleship's armamments in conflict - where all it was used or fired, from WWII to decommissioning, if the info is available, would be useful.

On point 4: I have actually been toying with the idea of deconstructing the entire article and moving all applicable information to the main weaponry articles. In theory, this would then allow for for the armament page to be gradually phased out and ultimately deleted while allowing the weaponry articles a chance to evolve from the current start/stub/B class ratings into FAs. Haven't decided if I want to do that yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd support the idea of using the weapon/generic content to improve the weapon articles. However, this does not require the destruction of this article, just a shift to focus on the class-specific weapon information: a {{main}} article link, a brief summary of the weapon, and the rest of the content focusing on the use of these weapons by the Iowas. -- saberwyn 06:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Harlsbottom

I just went back through the FAC (remarkably short!). A point raised then but seemingly never addressed is the question of small arms. I can see why the equipment carried by the U.S.M.C. detachment wouldn't count, but surely there would have been a store of rifles, small arms and the like? It's not important, but if you do have some information on it, the article would certainly be complete. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 17:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

TomStar81

Notes to self:

• factplace.com is considered an unreliable source. It will need to be removed before the FAR. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Some paragraphs have no citations. This will need to be addressed before the FAR. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight

Wow. This is a really great article. I only found a few things that could be changed, none of them major:

• More relevant wiki-links should be made. In the intro, "United States" could be changed to "United States Navy" and wiki-linked. World War II, in the next paragraph could also be wiki-linked. Tomahawk missiles and Harpoon missile should also be wiki-linked for clarity
• "Within each turret a red stripe on the wall of the turret, inches from the railing, marks the boundary of the gun's recoil, warning the crew to keep back." could be improved to "Inside each turret, there are red stripes on its walls, inches from the railing, which mark the boundary of the gun's recoil, warning the crew to keep back." Doesn't have to be exactly like this, but the world "turret" gets repetitive.
• "Cold War" could be wiki-linked in the ammunition sub-section.
• In the anti-aircraft armament section, "U.S. fleet of fast attack aircraft carriers" could be pipe-linked to Fast Carrier Task Force. Also, comma after "carriers"
• The wiki-linked "40 mm Bofors AA guns." could be de-linked, as it is already linked at the beginning of the sub section, and at the beginning of the next sub section. Same with
• NATO could be wiki-linked in the Missiles section

Hope that helped, and good luck with the FAR. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

USS New Jersey (BB-62)

previous peer review here

Its been 18 months since the last Peer Review for Big J, so she being re-reviewed so as to stay current with the times. I welcome all suggestions, comments, questions, and observations about the article and how it may be improved, note though that due to school I likely will not have a chance to adequately address the suggestions left until Spring Break at the earliest. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cam

I can remember when this was on the main page (I swear to all that is holy if I have to rollback "HAGGER?!" one more time....;) From start to finish, as thorough as I can go:

Infobox

• 9 x 16 in (406 mm) 50 cal. Mark 7 guns is linked twice (once in 1943, once in 1982). Could the second one be delinked?
  • Yeah, I meant to do that earlier so as to make the infoboxes as uniform as possible, but this errand keeps getting put off for various reasons.
• Is there a figure for the approximate range of New Jersey? during its service? If so, could this be added to the infobox?
  • Can you be more specific? Range of the ship at cruising speed, range of the guns, range of the missiles, or none of the above?
    • Essentially how far New Jersey could go without refueling. Cam ^(Chat) 00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• could the armour parts be delinked?

Lead & Construction

• New Jersey was one of the Iowa-class "fast battleship" should be New Jersey was one of the four Iowa-class "fast battleships"
• There's a lot of jargon words throughout that could simply be delinked, such as "commissioning", "air superiority", "launched", just to name those within these two sections.
  • That sort of presents a problem since those outside milhist aren't particularly familar with the terms, so they are linked for the benefit of the un-initiated. I'll see what I can do, but since I have to balance the needs of the project with the demands of the community the delinking may be more narrow in scope.
• and is the only one to serve off Vietnam during the Vietnam War..., shouldn't "is" be "was"?

World War II

• again, more words that can be delinked ("flagship", "fuel tanks", "airfield", "headquarters" etc)
• After rehearsing in the Marshalls for the invasion of the Marianas, New Jersey put to sea.... Could "rehearsing" be replaced with "training", since that's technically more correct?
• I'm slightly suspicious of the claim that only 17 aircraft were lost, since a lot of aircraft had to crash-land next to the fleet after the night raid on June 20. Most of my sources put that figure closer to 120 (of which the crews of 80 survived).
• In the section on the Battle of Leyte Gulf (during which the Iowas and the Yamatos almost fought one another), it mentions on that on 23 October American carrier aircraft sank a battleship. Could it be added which battleship it was? (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's referring to Musashi)
• As with the other battleships of TF 38, skillful seamanship brought New Jersey through the storm largely unscathed.., except the Iowa article states that that particular ship was damaged enough that it had to return to the US for repairs, could this sentence be fixed to reflect that?

The Korean War

• The frequent references to "Communist" targets are somewhat vague. Could they be replaced with "North-Korean" or "Sino-Korean" or something along those lines? They were fighting a country, not an ideology.
  • Problem there is that the Soviet and later Chinese forces did participate, and the record books aren't always clear about whose units were doing what when the Iowas unloaded on them. I will do some cross checking to see if I can nail down more precisely whose units were being engaged, that should help clear up the vagueness. TomStar810 (Talk) 22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Alright. It's a shame there isn't a more event-specific term like "Axis" or "Central Powers" or "Insurgent" or something like that that could be used. Cam ^(Chat) 00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Not much to report in this section. Excellent work on this particular bit!

Post Korean War

• Again, no issues here.

The Vietnam War

• a study aimed at determining what would be required to get New Jersey reactivated in her present condition..., what was her "present condition", the wording is slightly confusing.
  • WWII configuration, probably. I'll try nailing this down more when I get the chance.
    • I would think Korean configuration since the majority of the AA battery was removed for Korea because of ineffectiveness (wasn't a 40mm tub used as a swimming pool? -MBK₀₀₄ 22:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• New Jersey, now the world's only active battleship.., shouldn't it be "then the world's only active battleship"?
• Again, "communist" doesn't fit the situation. "North Vietnamese" would definitely be more in-place here.
• The continual use of "16 in" and "5 in" does make it a bit confusing. Shouldn't this be "16 inch" and "5 inch"?
• what is the DMZ?
  • Demilitarized zone; roughly, the area where the north and the South were divided.

Post Vietnam War

• What is the relevance of the unarmed recon plane being shot down in regards to New Jersey?
  • I believe you are referring to the EC-121 the North Koreans shot down; if so, then the significance was that the Navy ordered New Jersey to the area of the incident for what I believe was a show of force. I'll dig into this more when I get a chance.

Reactivation

• No issues in this section.

Lebanese Civil War

• Bob Hope and his troupe of entertainers give a show on board the New Jersey on 24 December 1983..., shouldn't "give" be "gave"?
• New Jersey fired 11 projectiles from her 16 inch (406 mm) guns at hostile positions inland of Beirut..., does your source mention what these targets were and what effect New Jersey's shells had on said targets?
• The section on the controversy of New Jersey's actions, are there any particular critics outside of the armed forces who take this view? (I know a few of my Chomsky books make reference to American actions in Lebanon, so I'll check there) Any specific within the armed forces?

Post-Lebanese deployment

• What's the third B for in BBBG? Shouldn't it just be BBG?
  • BBG would translate into "Guided missile battleship", as noted over at USS Kentucky (BB-66). BBBG is therefore used to denote "Battleship Battlegroup".
• No other issues with this section.

Reserve fleet and museum ship

• The cost to fix New Jersey was considered less than the cost to fix Iowa..., do you have any approximate numbers for the costs?
• selected the Home Port Alliance of Camden, New Jersey, as the battleship's final resting place... could the wording be changed? It makes it sound as though they sank New Jersey there.
  • Lol, good point :) will see about rewording.
• Other than that, no issues.

Superb work on this article and the other Iowas. I hope my comments help. Cam ^(Chat) 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Every little bit helps. I replied to some suggestions in the above text, but likely will not have time to address them in an all out fashion until the weekend. TomStar810 (Talk) 22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Braunschweig class battleship

I recently rewrote this article, and it just passed GA. I'd like to get some suggestions for further improvement. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Cam

Overall, another excellent article. That said, a few minor suggestions:

• Could the second paragraph of the initial "design" section be split off into a separate "Propulsion" section below the other two?
• Obviously, the ships did not have identical service histories. could that section be reworked to have a little independent bit about each of the individual ship histories?
• Are there images of any of the other ships (ie not Hessen?) that could be used as well on this article?
• In the infobox, could the range, be cited (just because it isn't mentioned anywhere else)?

That's all I've got for now. All the best in taking the article forward! Cam ^(Chat) 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Cam. I split the propulsion section as you suggested. As to the service histories, as far as I can tell, the ships all served together during the early period of WWI in the IV battle squadron, but didn't see much action. Although, it seems that Braunschweig and Elsaß both took part in the Battle of the Gulf of Riga in 1915, so I'll add that posthaste (it's funny, because I more or less wrote that article's summary of the battle, but when I came to this one, forgot that those two ships were there). But, other than Riga and Hessen's participation at Jutland, it doesn't seem like the ships had eventful careers. There's nothing on their pre-war service in any of the books I've got, or anything I can find through Google books. I combined it because it didn't seem useful to essentially repeat the same information for each ship in a setup like this. There aren't many good images of the ships on Commons, but there was a decent photo of Preußen in 1932 that I added to the article. There's a picture of Lothringen on Commons, but it's pretty crappy, IMHO. I thought I had mentioned the range in the text, but apparently not. I'll add that and cite it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a very solid article about an interesting class of ships - great work. My comments are:

• At the risk of opening a can of worms, I think that you should note that the Kaiserliche Marine was the Imperial German Navy in the lead sentence - I've read widely on WWI, and have never seen the term 'Kaiserliche Marine' used, and I doubt that it will be familiar to many readers - the lead sentence could read: 'The Braunschweig class battleships were pre-dreadnought battleships of the Kaiserliche Marine (the German Imperial Navy).'
• I think that the 'construction' section should be placed after the 'design' section given that the design preceded construction
• It would be helpful if the ships' intended role and any lessons which were incorporated from previous designs was discussed in the 'design' section - was the class built as coast defence ships, for instance?
• Is there anything which can be said about the ships' pre-WWI service? Braunschweig had been in commission for almost a decade at the time war started.
• Why were the ships withdrawn from service in 1916? Similarly, why were they reactivated after the war - was this purely because Germany had no better ships left and were unable to build new battleships? Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the first two things you pointed out. I can't find anything in the books that I've got that say a whole lot about the design process, other than technical details. If I could get my hands on a copy of Conway's 1860-1905, I could probably find a lot of that information, but it's out of print and very hard to find. The ships were built as sea-going battleships—the naval rivalry between Germany and Great Britain was in full swing by now. There's very little on their service histories in general, but what little I could find was all WWI and after, with the exception of Hessen having accidentally rammed and sunk a Danish steamer. From what I've been able to find, the ships were withdrawn from service due to manpower shortages. That is exactly the reason the ships were reactivated; all of Germany's dreadnoughts were either on the bottom of Scapa Flow or ceded to the Allies as war prizes. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)