Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Oldenburg

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. Anotherclown (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Oldenburg[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Since I have the time, now that the semester is over, let's see if I can handle another ACR at the same time. This is the last German dreadnought-type battleship to grace the ACR pages. As usual, thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article, I look forward to working with you. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~

The caption for File:Bundesarchiv Bild 134-B2656, Linienschiff Oldenburg, Kaiser Wilhelm II..jpg could use a year.

Please be consistent about including OCLC numbers in the references.

The infobox differs from the Lead in the presentation of "Helgoland class" vs "Helgoland-class"

~~Recommend changing the "Footnotes" section to "Notes" since it has a subheader with the same name.~~

Just minor things. —Ed!^(talk) 00:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be taken care of, thanks again Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Ed!^(talk) 20:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support~~Comments~~ by MisterBee1966

Christened by Duchess Sophia Charlotte of Oldenburg, blabla by Frederick Augustus II, Grand Duke of Oldenburg, HRS v6 page 194
Please add the footnote for Ersatz
check the armament of the 8.8 guns. It states 16 and 14 just like you had it on SMS Thüringen. HRS p. 193 states that initially 14 x 8.8 SK, then 12 x 8.8 SK plus 2 x 8.8 Flak, then 10 x 8.8 SK plus 4 x 8.8 Flak

The Flak configuration still doesn't match HRS. Can you double check and comment please. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now.

Hermann Bauer was her commander in November and December 1918, HRS p. 193
- Added both of the pieces of info from HRS (thanks again) and the Ersatz footnote. You'd think I was writing these two articles at the same time or something ;) Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

Clarify in the lede that it fought against the Imperial Russian Navy, not just the Russian Navy.
Clarify that the oil was sprayed on the coal lest readers think that she no longer burnt coal at all.
Need cites in the infobox or a short paragraph covering armor in the description (preferred)
You might consider starting stubs on the various squadrons of the HSF not already begun. Covering their composition at certain dates would be useful.
Add # and type of boilers to description.
VTE engines use ihp, not shp. Also need to add to descriptive paragraph. Or cite.
I expect that these comments generally apply to your other ACR so go ahead and make the necessary changes there as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing the article, Sturm - everything should be taken care of, and I'll check the other article as well. Parsecboy (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support

I've made some edits consistent with my review of Thuringen, feel free to revert if I've got it wrong.
in Subsequent operations, it appears you still need to substitute Oldenburg for Thuringen in a couple of spots in the second para?
can you clarify whether the Oldenburg crew participated in the mutiny?

Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits all look fine to me, and I fixed the Thuringen bit in the paragraph. I'm traveling for the holidays, so I can't answer your last question until Thursday at the earliest. Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a small issue, and don't think it should stand in the way of the article being promoted. Moving to support. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord comment: has Peacemaker's final comment been dealt with? If so, this review can probably be closed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But see above. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Is the installed power right? Seems kind of low - it doesn't match the class article (prose/infobox).
Infobox: the designed displacement, complement are uncited.Kirk (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2013 (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.