Germany's most famous battleship, sunk on her maiden voyage after destroying HMS Hood. I completely rewrote this article in June and it passed GA in July. I feel the article is at or close to our A-class criteria. Thanks to all editors who review the article to ensure it meets our standards. Parsecboy (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Prinz Eugen was commanded by Kapitän zur See Helmuth Brinkmann, please add link
I don't know that the captain of Prinz Eugen is really relevant in this article. That and I can't find a place to put it without it being very out of place.
He was a Knight's Cross recipient and close friend of Lindemann
That's fine, but I don't know that he belongs in this article. If you can find a place to add him that doesn't feel like you're going out of your way to mention him, that's fine, but I could not.
"but a merchant vessel had been sunk in the Kiel Canal" who sank the ship? If unknown maybe reword slightly
Müllenheim-Rechberg doesn't mention who sank the ship, and I don't still have Garzke & Dulin.
rapid-fire salvos. Von Müllenheim-Rechberg states that Bismarck's delivery system could fire every 18 seconds
That type of technical information doesn't really belong in individual ship articles. It is in the class article though.
I disagree! According to Von Müllenheim-Rechberg, Schneider had ordered rapid fire on Hood. The flight time of the shells at the combat distance exceeded rate of fire. Combat between Hood and Bismarck lasted only a little over 5 minutes. Grützner argues that the probability of scoring a hit on Hood and scoring a hit on PoW (after shifting fire) was also attributed to rate of fire. Thus it was relevant to the outcome of the battle, thus relevant to this article.
Can you give a page name for Grützner's claim?
please check your citations. His name is Von Müllenheim-Rechberg not Von Müllenheim-Rechburg
Can you add the link to all the images on Wiki Commons please?
And as commented on your talk page I am missing crew structure. If you want to defer to the class article at least explain how the admirality staff around Lütjens was organized
The following three books deal exclusively we the crew of Bismarck.
Added a paragraph on the organization of the crew.
Comment. I recall that many years ago, as a kid I was fascinated by the National Geographic pictures of Bismarck's wreck. I am sure they are not freely licensed, but 1) could a fair use person present an explanation why fair use would not be justified and 2) has an attempt been made to contact author(s) of such photos, so we could obtain at least one for our project? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Fair use should work - the ship is a couple miles down on the bottom of the ocean, so none of us can exactly go take our own pictures ;) I have not contacted anyone related to the Ballard expedition (or others, for that matter) to look into acquiring an image for the article - I wouldn't know where to begin. Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
there are no dab links; ext links work (no action required);
the lead says: "launched nearly three years later in April 1939"; the body of the article says: "The hull was launched on 1 April 1939", and the infobox says: "Launched: 14 February 1939". This seems inconsistent. Does this mean the same thing?
Should have been 14 April - must have been looking at Tirpitz's entry when I wrote those.
the duplicate link tool reports a few links that might be considered to be overlinked: Gotenhafen; Scharnhorst class battleship; Halifax Regional Municipality; U-boat; Brest, France; Luftwaffe; Ludovic Kennedy; torpedo bulkhead;
"were assigned to the ninth divisions". Probably should just be "were assigned to the ninth division" (no "s");
"delay greatly frustrated KzS Lindemann". Has this abbreviation (KzS) been formally introduced?
No, but it shouldn't be used for him, as he has already been introduced.
"At 8:45 on 8 March". Is this in the morning, or at night?
probably need a second comma here: "were based in Brest, France at the" (after "France");
English variation issue: "unmaneuverable" v. "unmanoeuvrable"
English variation: "ship's command center was killed" (the article seems to be using British English, as such "center" should probably be "centre");
some of the emdashes are incorrectly spaced, e.g. here: "tube useless — the closest" and here: "claimed one hit — a claim which";
Not sure how those snuck in, but they're fixed now.
"Two old Revenge class battleships, HMS Revenge and Ramillies" (probably should have a hyphen "Revenge-class battleships...")
Note 2 probably should start with a capital and end with a full stop for consistency with the other notes. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for finding all of these. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
"...the newly commissioned battleship Prince of Wales...", is there a reason you haven't used the prefix "HMS" here, when you use it at first instance in other places?
"At this time, Admiral Raeder finally informed...", should just be "At this time, Raeder finally informed..." removing rank at second instance per WP:SURNAME.
"Admiral Lütjens gave permission for Prinz Eugen...", should be "Lütjens gave permission for Prinz Eugen..." (as above).
"Admiral Tovey's Home Fleet was steaming to intercept...", should be "Tovey's Home Fleet was steaming to intercept..." (as above). Anotherclown (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Good call, PoW should have the prefix there. Ranks removed as suggested. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Support, although I am somewhat confused about "applied a coat of dazzle paint to camouflage her from aerial observers" - I was under the impression that dazzle camouflage wasn't much help against aircraft but was rather designed for naval-naval combat. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 19:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
That's what Bercuson and Herwig said it was for - I can provide the direct quotation if you like. I agree with you though, it's mainly to confuse gun-layers as to the direction and heading of the ship. Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.