I had more or less written this article off as a perennial GA, but I've been able to overhaul and expand it a bit, and now I think it has legs for FA. These ships were never completed, but the design was slightly modified for the Ersatz Yorck class, which were also never built but in turn provided the basis for the WWII-era Scharnhorst class. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I have a few comments before supporting MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it would help to mention the namesake, August von Mackensen, in the lead. The reader has to read 2/3 of the article before finding this info.
I would link the ships Mackensen, Graf Spee, Prinz Eitel Friedrich, and Fürst Bismarck in the lead.
There's no point in doing that - they don't have articles and won't ever be created. General practice is to not have articles on unfinished ships unless they were otherwise still particularly notable (see for instance Japanese battleship Tosa, which is significant because the armor tests done with her unfinished hull provided the basis for the Yamato-class battleships)
the word Ersatz should be explained, footnote would do
Added the usual footnote.
Every German ship is named without the prefix SMS while Hood is named with HMS.
Added to the first German ship
The HRS books are listed with their ASIN id. I think there is an ISBN number available.
Replaced with ISBNs.
On the Mackensen-class template, why is the text "class battlecruisers" in bold text?
Question: "Mackensen was stricken" checking my English here, but I would have wrote "Mackensen was struck".
Stricken is the past participle (and see the 4th example there), struck is the simple past. Thanks for the review, MisterBee. Parsecboy (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
No ambiguous entries found, moving to SupportMisterBee1966 (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Support with minor comments
" based on experience at the Battle of Jutland in 1916." - it felt like something was missing here. "based on the experience at the Battle"? "based on experience from the Battle"?
Yes, I think "from" is better.
" with work to begin in the 1914 budget year. " - "with work intended to begin"?
"six 38 cm" "30.5 cm" Probably a matter of personal taste, but I'd have repeated the imperial conversion given in the lead.
Added the conversion for the second 38cm, but the 30.5cm is converted in the first para of that section.
" drove a three-bladed screw that was 4.2 m in diameter." - I'd advise "screw propeller" to make it easier to skim read, and 4.2m will need an imperial equivalent.
"20 percent" - consistency over use of "%" versus "percent"
Standardized to "percent"
"the central citadel of the ship, where the most important parts of the ship were located." - "most important parts of the vessel" would avoid repetition of "ship" Hchc2009 (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Fixed, all good suggestions Hchc, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Support: looks very good to me. Well done. I have a couple of minor nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
slight discrepancy between the infobox and the body, for instance "beam 30.5 m" (body) v. "Beam: 30.4 m" (infobox)
I'm sure one is a typo - I don't have Groener on hand though, so I can't check it right now.
slight inconsistency in presentation "15 cm" guns (body) v. "150 mm" guns (infobox); "8.8 cm" guns in body v. "88 mm" guns in infobox
Fixed, good catch
"The design staff suggested to use triple or even..." seems a little awkward, perhaps: "The design staff suggested using triple or even..."
Much better, yes.
in the infobox "draught" --> should this be "draft" if you are using US English?
in the Footnotes, note 2 is missing closed quotation marks;
Fixed, eagle eyes ;)
in the References, the third instance of Annapolis is linked - this should probably be moved to the first;
in the References, inconsistent presentation: "Annapolis" v. "Annapolis, MD". AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Standardized to include the state abbreviation. Thanks a lot, AR. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
30.5 and 35 cm were converted in the lede and you convert them as well in the first para of the Design section and elsewhere.
Removed the redundant conversion in the armament section, but another editor asked to have the conversions repeated once in the body.
Not a long-enough article to matter, I'd have thought, but OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Split ship power and ship propulsion in the infobox.
suggest adding link to the unfamiliar units in the infobox and the main body.
Added, let me know if I missed any
Formatting of the armor section in the infobox looks odd.
Yeah, that was odd - don't know what I was doing a few years back ;)
direct coupled should be hyphenated as a compound adjective.
Link torpedo, torpedo tube and Kiel-Nordmole.
Move the redlink to its first appearance. I presume that Kiel-Nordmole is a suburb of Kiel itself, would it be better to link to Kiel proper?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Moved and simply linked Kiel, though I'd imagine that some point the suburb articles will be created (for instance, as with Harburg and Altona in Hamburg). Of course Kiel isn't as much of a major city as Hamburg is, so it might take some time. Parsecboy (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
You have more information on the armor scheme in the main body than in the infobox. Suggest that the latter be expanded to match.
Added the deck and CT
You've got more redundant conversions in the armor section and also some significant rounding errors.
I think the only redundant one was the 150mm for the 15cm guns, right? And the only rounding error I saw was the 300mm -> 12", though admittedly my eyes are a little burned out at the moment - long day at work ;)
Add the hyphens to the ISBNs for HRS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)