Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Hannover

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.
Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Hannover[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)
Toolbox

Yet another German battleship. This was one of the last pre-dreadnoughts built by the Germans, and indeed completed after Dreadnought. I appreciate any and all comments aimed at improving the article. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • After SMS Hannover, I added: (German: "His Majesty's ship Hannover"). That seems to be the only approach that everyone likes so far to the problem of answering the first two questions most readers will have (what's SMS, and what or where is Hannover?), but I don't feel strongly about it, I'm just trying to get consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have real strong opinions about it either, so it'll work for me. Parsecboy (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the "German:" based on an objection in a current FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a reminder that you're welcome to revert anything I do. Also, I can say more or less about reasons for my edits, it's your call. I default to making edits silently, unless I know that there's some issue people might want to hash out (or re-hash or re-re-hash). - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problems here. If I ever see anything I have a question about I'll ask. Parsecboy (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get a total of two hits for "Reichsmarine" in titles or subtitles of English-language books on Amazon; better to go with "German Navy" or "German Navy of the Weimar Republic" or nothing. - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about these 1.5k hits in Google Books? It's about half as much for Kriegsmarine, which is to be expected, given that the KM fought WWII and the RM didn't fight anything. Parsecboy (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'm disappointed that Amazon has only two of these. The two Google book searches that do it for me are books in English with "german navy" in the title or subtitle and books in English with "reichsmarine" in the title or subtitle. I had to dig through the results because, sadly, Google's search facility sucks and includes a lot of German books in the second search. The first search did it for me: there were very few books where "German Navy" referred to the Reichsmarine (understandably, they tended to be about the Kriegsmarine or the Imperial German Navy), and the "Reichsmarine" search gave me enough to be able to make a case that this is a well-used term in English sources, and also the more precise term. Thanks for the pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ship was laid down ... at the Kaiserliche Werft dockyard ...": agreed, use the German words here (because it's a company), and don't italicize (see WP:MOSTEXT and WP:MOS), but some readers will want to know that the company name means "Imperial shipyard", so I added that translation at the link. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally stay away from issues with units, but I want to pass along that I never see "in" for inches in the main text in publications intended for a general (not technical or targeted) readership; it's confusing. I'll see if I can find something about this in style guides. - Dank (push to talk) 04:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes sense. I fixed the one in reference to the 13.5-inch shell, are there any more? Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't pick up anything searching for _in_ or -in_ so that's probably all of them. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • "28 cm (11 in)" is easy enough to understand, and anywhere else where "in" is in parentheses. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand (I think) why your sources consider the ship was "obsolete" when launched ... she was likely to be sunk in a solo protracted battle against HMS Dreadnought, and not able to sink her, so she was obsolete as a capital ship ... but you don't explain it and I think most of your readers won't know. Maybe something like "obsolete as a capital ship, that is, [a little explanation]". With the longer explanation I'm thinking of, the "despite" phrase starting the next paragraph wouldn't be necessary, and I deleted it, but you might still need it, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a line to the intro and a note in the body about the advantages Dreadnought possessed. How does that look now? Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's better, and it works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a suggestion at WT:WikiProject_Ships#Units_in_ship_articles on how we present some of the units in the sidebar; I'll come back to this later. - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • no dab links, ext links work (no action required);
    • the image lacks alt text (but I won't oppose on this, although I'd like to suggest adding it);
    • obsolete and obselescent are slightly different, however, you have "Hannover was obsolete" then "Despite her obsolescence"...(if they were obsolete, it should be "obsoleteness" according to the Macquaurie Dictionary) (in the lead);
    • in the Battle of Jutland section "4:00" (as in ...reached Horns Reef by 4:00 on 1 June") should be "04:00" for consistency;
    • in the World War I section, I'd like to suggest adding the following clause to the first sentence: "Following the outbreak of World War I, Hannover was tasked..." I feel this would improve the narrative flow (but it is only a suggestion);
    • in the World War I section I think "8" (as in 8 pre-dreadnoughts) should be "eight";
    • in the World War I section, should "mining operation" be "minelaying operation"?
    • in the Battle of Jutland section, Grand Fleet is linked for a second time (it was already linked in the section above);
    • in the Later actions section, the second sentence seems to be missing a word (Hannover the rest of II...);
    • in the Postwar section, "most modern components of Germany's surface fleet was..." (should it be "was" or "were"?)
    • some ISBNs have hyphens and others don't
    • in the References section the Herwig and Williamson sources should have endashes for date ranges in the titles;
    • is there a source for Note # 1;
    • Citations # 21 and 22 are to the same source (Tarrant, p. 195) and could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS (you've done this for a few others already). — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the thorough review. I think I've got everything you pointed out. Parsecboy (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. Looks good. I think there is still one outstanding, though: have you got a citation for Note # 1? — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh, yes, I've added it now. Thanks for reminding me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One point for consideration though: many of the battle engagements cited in the Jutland section only give units in metric, and I for one can not think in metric. It may therefore be a good a good idea to add conversions for the sizes given in the section so the standard crowd can grasp what weapons were fired. Also, what classifies a vessel as a guard ship? The guns were removed but was anything added in their place? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I usually only convert the first instance of a unit (especially for frequently repeated figures like the main battery guns) and then leave them with just the metric.
    • Only some of the guns were removed, but Staff isn't clear as to which guns. Groner states that in Reichsmarine service the ship retained its 28cm and 17cm guns, so I'd wager it was the 8.8cm guns that were removed, but I wouldn't add that without something stating as much. Parsecboy (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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_Hannover&oldid=364261289"