Talk:SMS Baden

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles Military history: Maritime / European / German / World War I / Operation Majestic Titan This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force European military history task force German military history task force World War I task force Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The photo is of SMS Bayern not Baden, there's no admirals bridge as proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tankterror (talk • contribs) 08:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The design of the Baden carried over into the Bismarck."

As this statement is incorrect and contradicted by the "Bayern Class" generic article, I have deleted it. Although the Bismarck class had some common features, such as the main armament disposition, it was no more based upon the Bayern Class design than it was on the Kaisers, Konigs or similar British designs like the Queen Elizabeths or R class... 84.92.80.169 14:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking this over for DYK...it almost seems as if there's a complete paragraph missing at the end of the Scapa Flow section? The narrative jumps right from Reuter issuing the scuttling order, to the next section with the ship arriving in Invergordon, and there's noting in between... -

Thanks for catching that, it somehow must have slipped my mind when I was writing it. I've added a couple of sentences to bridge the gap. Parsecboy (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Much better now. :) -

Flank speed 15:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Break-up the sequence of Baden... Baden... Baden... in the Scapa Flow section.

   Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   B. MoS compliance:

   Use the chapter= for the Baden article title in Warship

   Added. Parsecboy (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   It was still messed up; ya gotta think of a volume of Warship as an anthology of articles, each with their own author and title. Fixed it for you regardless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I've added a clarification note on the beginning of the mutiny. Did the ships sail or not?

   Should be more clear now. Let me know if there's anything else I could add. Parsecboy (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Focused:

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   :

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Somewhat off topic: The Baden firing trials are of considerable interest to the naval history community but the complete & collated results thereof are not easily found on the web. Something to add here maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.48.5 (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a summary account of the trials here. If you want the information on every shell hit, the article by William Schleihauf is available for viewing on Google Books here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several instances of "Helgoland" in the article; the links direct to the "Heligoland" article. Is this a variant spelling? If so, then we should use the more predominant "Heligoland" unless there is a compelling reason, specific to the context of the usage in this article, to use the variant. If it's just an error, it should be corrected. Holy (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helgoland is the German spelling - given that it's a German island, and this article is about a German warship, I felt the German spelling was more appropriate (especially since there are contemporary ships named after the island -

talk) 17:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

That makes sense. Thanks! Holy (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The passage "The ship was found to have been approximately as efficient as the British Royal Sovereign-class battleships.^[1]" must be incorrect, as the class was of pre-dreadnought battleships of the British Royal Navy. Presumely, Goodall refers to the battleship Royal Sovereign, which was of the Revenge class. The class is, indeed, sometimes referred to by the name of the last ship of the class. To confuse, the word R-class is also used. Nevertheless, the link points to the article of a pre-dreadnought battleship build in 1889–1894 and decommissioned by the time Baden was laid down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.217.248.11 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for finding that - I'm not sure how no one else noticed that during the reviews, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing these out, Ed, I hadn't seen them. I don't see much of a reason to retain the Hornby quote, and I fixed the page number issue Simon pointed out. The remaining issue, Schleihauf, is a bit tougher to solve - we obviously can't cite the primary source documents that Simon checked, and while he's published articles in [[The Mariner's Mirror], I don't know that that qualifies him as an expert under

WP:SPS to simply cite the blog. I'd rather retain it if we can add the context, but if not, it may be better to simply delete it as well. Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There seems to have been a fatal accident in August 1919 when at Invergordon - this report of an inquest indicates that a dockyard worker was killed after a buildup of explosive gases in the "port screw alley or tunnel" was ignited by a candle; a few other men were injured.

It looks like we have an article on Edmund Abbott, who was awarded the Albert Medal for his part in the rescue. Not sure whether to add a mention of this or not. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say it probably warrants a mention - I don't have a subscription to the BNA so you'll have to handle adding the material, but I'm happy to help where I can. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy Thanks - wasn't sure if it seemed too minor or not. I've stuck something in near the start of the British section. Unfortunately it's using standard citations not sfn - I don't usually use those and I'm not quite sure how to make it play nicely when we don't have an author name. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm generally of the mind that if an accident resulted in significant casualties, it's worth a mention. I'll figure out the sfn templates :) Parsecboy (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]