Talk:SMS Blücher

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. "starting with Von der Tann, on which construction began in 1907" - This sounds very awkward and should be reworded.
   2. More of the naval terms should be linked (waterline, transverse and longitudinal steel frames, tp name a few) to be safe. The average person knows very little about ship design and nautical terminology. I'd recommend going through the article and adding a link to any design elements that the average person doesn't immediately understand.
   3. Punctuation in large numbers should be consistent, Commas in all large numbers or none (1,000 or 1000) This is relatively minor but it is noticably inconsistent throughout the article.
   4. The external links sections should be at the very bottom of the prose, but with only one link I would question the necessity of it. You could just omit the section or add more links to it if you like, that's your call.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet

   1. "Blücher was considered to be a good sea boat..." By who? This sentence needs a source since it seems to be a subjective claim.
3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

7. Overall:

   On Hold while a few issues are resolved. -—Ed!^(talk) 01:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Ed. I think I've fixed everything you pointed out. Let me know if the "on which construction" bit is fine now. Parsecboy (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks just fine, thanks. The article now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! -—Ed!^(talk) 14:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article states nothing about the SMS Blücher's captain(s). I found an article at [1] although it only refers to the captain as "Captain Erdmann". May somebody assist me in finding a credible source stating Blücher's captain? Cheers!--Martin (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Blücher" doesn't appear at leo.org, is it a proper name, and was it named after a particular person? - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Only the victor at Waterloo ;) Parsecboy (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just FYI, aftering muttering a bit about units and getting a couple of changes to the MOS, I'm done; my standard disclaimer says I don't do units, and I'm going to stick to that. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Blücher was considered to have been a good sea boat by the German navy" ... by the entire German navy? Be as specific as the source will allow. Also, when I see an opinion like this, I like to see a ref immediately after (rather than relying on the ref at the end of the paragraph to cover it), so that I'll be reassured that you're saying the opinion was in, and attributed in, the source. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Groner doesn't attribute it to anyone, but his book is based entirely on official documents from the naval archives, so I thought it would be safe to attribute it to the navy. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I made the change, see if that works. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sorry, I don't know what "had gentle motion" means. Is that expressable in terms of ship motions or perhaps the output of the engines? - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now attributing to the naval archives. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, done with the pre-FAC copyedit. (Disclaimer: the more of these I do, the faster I do them ... we'll see how that goes :) - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh and you may or may not want to do something about this comment from the FAC: "reduced to 80 mm in less important areas of the hull" ... "less important how?" It depends on how easy it would be to answer this; a long answer would be worse than no answer. - Dank (push to talk) 05:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The important areas are primarily the machinery spaces and ammunition magazines, which were grouped as much as possible in the center of the ship. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, assuming Groner talked about more and less important or critical areas, IMO it's a good-enough fix to stick that ref at the end of the sentence. Done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The delegates are unlikely to be impressed by Gene's comments. I see it's fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 05:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with a previous reviewer that I'm not certain what this means: "information from the German naval attaché to Britain about the armament of the Invincible class was leaked." - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The German naval attache assigned to Britain somehow got the actual details of the Invincible class armament, and sent it back to Germany. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, went through it one more time, done now. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to pick on this article, Wiki descriptions are generally not great in this respect & I understand that sources are often thin on technical detail, but from the description I can in no way formulate a cross section or a side elevation of the armour arrangements. A good set diagrams, at very worst a Brassey's type schematic, would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.48.5 (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, editions of Brassey's published after the ship was built are not viewable in Google books. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone broke the links to the naval guns by adding convert templates. Is it really necessary to convert the gun caliber to inches? I had the impression even the Americans measured guns in cm these days. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]