Another German battleship, this vessel is probably best known for being sunk by Billy Mitchell's bombers off the Virginia Capes in 1921. I wrote this article in January 2011, when it also passed a GA review, and it passed a MILHIST ACR in August (see here). I think the article is at or near FA quality, and I look forward to working with reviewers during the nomination. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
"Fürstin of Innhausen und Knyphausen": This would be easier to read, and would be transparent to Germans as well, as "Princess of Innhausen and Knyphausen". I don't care one way or the other if you add a translation in the footnotes.
"Kapitän zur See": MisterBee suggested we set up a page giving best practices for using German in ship articles, and that would be great ... and any general principles that you guys agree on will probably be fine with me. I think German works a little better untranslated than other languages, because it's so close to English. (We should also probably have a page somewhere explaining that German is a little easier for English-speakers to read than it appears at first glance, as long as you know that 5 out of 6 words in English running text tend to originate from German, with some letters transposed and some morphed ... so in Kapitän zur See, the t and i transposed, and K morphed to C, z to t, u to o, and e to a, all common morphs. zur is a contraction of zu der.) Some German is also quite common in English sources on WWI and WWII. Still, I think we should always look for ways to quickly and unobtrusively make the meaning clear to English-speakers and German-speakers at the same time, and try to avoid 20-letter words with 15 consonants when possible :) - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. I don't think there's "too much German" here, my only request is that ship people get together and come up with some general guidelines on using German in ship articles. I recently mentioned that I'm cutting back on copyediting and supporting, but it would just be rude not to support on prose when I've already reviewed and supported this article before. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Is the Princess notable in her own right? And do we have an article on her title? If so link them.
Not that I know - we don't have an article for her or her title, as far as I know.
Consider adding a drawing or picture that illustrates the hexagonal turret arrangement.
I tracked down a linedrawing in the 1922 Britannica.
Torpedo diameter conversion differs between infobox and main body.
Horsepower is missing from main body.
How thick was her barbette armor?
Ostfriesland and the rest of I Squadron were sortied Delete the helping verb.
It would probably be a good idea to start the individual battle squadron articles, even if they're only stubs. That way people can figure out their hybrid name a bit more easily if you provide the original German name in the stub.
Probably worth clarifying that Slava was a predreadnought.
Isn't it already?
What does this mean? The German battlecruisers were steaming to starboard, while the British ships steamed to port.
The German line was steaming in the middle, between the British and German battlecruiser squadrons.
Typo alert: and killed then entire 857-man crew
Might be worth clarifying that Osfriedland was stationary when attacked by Mitchell's boys.
Sorry for asking but regarding Kaiserschießpreis and Friedrich der Grosse, isn't that inconsistent usage of the ß (Eszett)? MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
You're right, it probably shouldn't use the eszett. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Some of your other aricles use a footnote to explain what Ersatz means. I think this is very helpful and should be considered here too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I had missed this - added the standard note now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Support Comments -- nice work as usual, specifics follow...
Prose/structure/detail -- completed my usual copyedit, hope that all sits okay; generally things look good, just a couple of points:
You probably should be employing non-breaking spaces for formations such as "I Squadron" -- I note they're used for "I Scouting Group" at least once (you also use them in some, but not all, dates).
With translated terms, be consistent in which comes first, German or English -- for instance you have "Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral)" and "Vizeadmiral (Vice Admiral)" but "Grand Admiral (Großadmiral)" later on. I'm not sure of the standard and frankly don't care too much as long as there's uniformity within the article.
Referencing -- happy to rely on Nikki for this.
Images -- ditto Storm.
Source spotcheck -- I think the last time you had one was in mid-2011, so probably time for another -- perhaps a Ships Project member could take care of that as they'd probably have access to print materials that I wouldn't. Once that's conducted successfully I'll be more than ready to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ian, your edits look good to me. I added non-breaking spaces for the units and fixed the Grand Admiral bit. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Spotchecks coming. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Spotchecks for all the refs for Staff (I) (and there are a lot of them) all check out, except note:
"On 24 April 1912, Ostfriesland replaced Westfalen as squadron flagship.": Staff (I), p. 43
"On 24 April 1912, Ostfriesland replaced Westfalen as the squadron flagship.": text
"... on 25–26 September 1916 covered an advance by the II Führer der Torpedoboote (Leader of Torpedo Boats) to Terschelling Bank.": Staff (I), p. 43
"On 25–26 September, [they] covered an advance conducted by the II Führer der Torpedoboote (Leader of Torpedo Boats) to the Terschelling Bank.": text
"For the majority of 1917, Ostfriesland was assigned to guard duty in the German Bight.": I don't see that on the given page.
"On 6 November, Ostfriesland was decommissioned and used as a barracks ship.": Staff (I) says 16 December.
Both Massie refs check out.
Gröner refs all check out, except:
"She had a crew of 42 officers and 1,027 enlisted men": Gröner, p. 25, says: "42/1071 (plus 13/66 as squadron flagship)"
"Derfflinger and Seydlitz had been seriously damaged at the Battle of Jutland ...": Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see on p. 56 or p. 57 that Derfflinger was damaged. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for checking these, Dan. Everything should be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
That all looks good except for the German Bight bit ... was it another ref in that paragraph that covers it? Does the ref's text imply your sentence? - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh right, I was going to comment on that, but forgot apparently. The sentence is supported by the line "The year 1917 saw increased activity for the German battleships on picket duty and covering minesweeping forces..." - these activities took place in the German Bight. Parsecboy (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Tks for spotchecking/fixes Dan/Parsec -- happy to support now (see above). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.