Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS König Albert

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SMS König Albert[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Another German battleship at ACR. This was the only German capital ship in commission to miss the Battle of Jutland. I wrote this back in December 2010 and it passed a GA review in January 2011 - it's been sitting in the queue since then and hopefully hasn't gathered too much dust. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments:

  • Looks good!
  • Is there a map that could go with the "World War I" section? If you didn't know the history/area, it would be relatively hard to follow the movements of the ship.
  • Image checks come back fine, although SMS König Albert.jpg's file lacks a publication date to back up the claim that it was published in the US pre-1923. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments/suggestions: looks quite good. I have the following suggestions (happy to discuss anything you disagree with):

  • the Featured article tool reports two dab links that might need fixing: [1];
  • in the lead "World War I" and "High Seas Fleet" are probably overlinked;
  • "during the Battle of Jutland on 31 May – 1 June 1916" --> "during the Battle of Jutland between 31 May and 1 June 1916";
  • I wonder if the size of the crew could be worked into the Construction/design section. Currently it seems only to be mentioned in the infobox;
  • "The Division reached Rio de Janeiro on 15 February 1914, which ceremonially greeted the visiting German warships". This sentence seems slightly out of order. Perhaps it should be reworded slightly, for example: "On 15 February 1914 the Division reached Rio de Janeiro, which ceremonially greeted the visiting German warships";
  • "From Rio de Janeiro, Strassburg went to Buenos Aires, Argentina while". There should probably be a comma after "Argentina";
  • sentence order: "They remained in Valparaiso from 2 to 11 April, which marked the furthest point of their journey" --> "Between 2 and 11 April they remained in Valparaiso, which marked the furthest point of their journey";
  • "The High Seas Fleet, including König Albert, conducted a number of sweeps and advances into the North Sea". This probably needs a date/timeframe to provide some context. For instance, "During the early months of World War I, the High Seas Fleet, including Konig Albert...";
  • in the World War I section "Grand Fleet", "Franz von Hipper" and "I Scouting Group" are probably overlinked;
  • "he was faced with the entire Grand Fleet" --> "he was faced with the entire British Grand Fleet";
  • "to avoid risking the fleet unnecessarily, von Ingenohl broke off the engagement and turned the battle fleet back toward Germany" --> "to avoid risking the fleet unnecessarily, von Ingenohl broke off the engagement and turned back toward Germany";
  • "the fleet steamed out to the north of Terschelling and return without incident" --> "the fleet steamed out to the north of Terschelling and returned without incident";
  • "was an advance without result in the direction of Horns Reef" --> "was an advance in the direction of Horns Reef which concluded without result";
  • "designed to force a confrontation with the British Grand Fleet" (if you add "British" to the first mention of "Grand Fleet" as per my earlier suggestion, it can probably be knocked off here);
  • "Work on the ship wasn't completed until 15 June". Probably best to avoid the contraction here;
  • "in an attempt to draw out and destroy Beatty's battlecruisers". Probably best to wikilink and use Beatty's full name here as he hasn't been previously mentioned;
  • sometimes you use "the X Squadron" but then sometimes just "X Squadron" without the definate article. This should probably be consistent;
  • in the Operation Albion section "Zerel", "battlecruiser" and "Danzig" are probably overlinked;
  • "the German navy decided" --> contentious as to whether the organisation decided, or just the people that were in command;
  • slightly repetitious: "over the span of an hour. The three ships fired on the battery at Zerel for an hour". Perhaps reword slightly;
  • in the Fate section, "light cruiser" is probably overlinked;
  • "Admiral Adolf von Trotha made clear to von Reuter that he could not allow" --> "Admiral Adolf von Trotha made it clear to von Reuter that he could not allow" (or replace "made clear to" with "told" or something similar);
  • in the Footnotes section, I think it is a little counter intuitive to have a level 2 heading called "Footnotes" and then subheadings of "Footnotes" and "Citations". Perhaps it might be best to have a level 2 heading of "Notes" and then subheadings of "Footnotes" and "Citations";
  • in the References section, there is some inconsistency, e.g. "Bloomington, IN" as opposed to "Annapolis", but also "Amherst, New York";
  • in the References, is there a publishing location for the Tarrant source? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should all be fixed - I knew some dust would have gathered, thanks for helping me clean it up. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)

  • "From Rio de Janeiro, Strassburg went to Buenos Aires, Argentina while König Albert and Kaiser <missing part of a sentence?> Montevideo, Uruguay."
  • christened by Princess Mathilde of Saxony; speech by Frederick Augustus III of Saxony
  • The image in the infobox shows anti torpedo nets. Maybe worth pointing out
  • Do you know how many rounds of ammunition she carried? I found this in the class article
  • HRS v5 p109 says that she was the last of five ships of the Kaiser class. The article here states that she was the fourth! Error or misinterpretation? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discrepancy is probably from the fact that König Albert was ordered and laid down before Prinzregent Luitpold, but commissioned last. Parsecboy (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportOppose based mostly on the unaddressed comments above. A few more comments of my own:

  • "On the evening of 15 December, the German battle fleet of some twelve dreadnoughts—including König Albert and her four sisters—and eight pre-dreadnoughts" -- this sounds strange, as the pre-dreadnought page seems to indicate they are not dreadnoughts.
    • It's 20 ships in total - the five Kaisers were part of the 12 dreadnoughts.
  • "as a result, König Albert was the only German dreadnought in active service to miss the battle." -- What are the implications of this? A little context might help about the battle and why this is relevant.
    • How does it read now?
  • "Another fleet operation took place on 18–19 October" -- what kind of operation.
    • The same as the previous operations mentioned - steaming out into the North Sea to find British ships.
  • Campbell and Gröner in the references aren't used in the article.
    • Yes they are, Groner is fn #1 and Campbell is in one of the notes. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will be happy to support when my comments and the other above comments are addressed. —Ed!(talk) 22:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. It all looks good to me now. Adding my support. —Ed!(talk) 10:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/SMS_König_Albert&oldid=1138359772"