Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Blücher/archive1

--an odd name 18:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt text has been added, let me know if any of it needs work. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first image's alt can probably mention the ship's two cross-shaped masts, but alts look good otherwise. --an odd name 23:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• How was the torpedo bulkhead situated in relation to the main armor belt?
• Were the casemated guns washed out at high speeds or sea states?
• The Bombardment of Yarmouth section doesn't mention any armored cruisers until Yorck ran onto a minefield. You only mention Blücher, some battlecruisers and light cruisers, but no armored cruisers. Where did she come from?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clarified where the bulkhead was. I haven't seen anything specifically state that Blucher's casemates were wet, but given that practically every warship with casemates had this problem, I'd say it's reasonable to assume that Blucher did too. That said, without having a source state as much, I'm not going to add it to the article. As for Yorck, I haven't been able to find out where the ship was specifically prior to her sinking. It certainly wasn't with Hipper and the BCs, so I'm assuming it was with the main fleet. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, 1a. The text contains too much jargon and vague language—I found it to be a very frustrating read and not at all accessible. Some back-knowledge can be assumed, but average readers should be able to make it through most sentences without clicking off to read definitions and context. Sample issues:
  • The opening line leaves me a bit cold, to be honest. What does "last" mean in this context? Last built? Last surviving?
  • "which were expected to simply be larger" The modifier "simply" seems misplaced or misused here. What are you modifying?
  • "Being only an upgrade of the traditional armored cruisers" In what way? I read on a considerable distance to discover no section detailing the contrast between Blücher and the "traditional armored cruisers". Unclear prose.
  • "One week after the final decision was made" Which decision? The armament decision, or are you speaking of overall design considerations?
  • "Blücher had a draft of 8.84 m forward, but only 8.56 m aft." The word "only" suggests that the contrast should mean something to me... but what?
  • "However, she suffered from severe roll, and at hard rudder, she heeled over up to 10 degrees." This sentence was impossible for me to digest as a non-specialist. "Roll" links to an article that describes "listing".

Good start but it definitely needs tightening up and improved accessibility. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. "Last" does indeed mean "last built;" I've specified that. As for "simply," I'm not quite sure what you mean. The following sentence should make clear what I meant by the assumption that the Invincibles would feature only minor improvements over the armored cruiser type. I added a note comparing Blücher and the preceding Scharnhorst class in terms of number of guns. The "only" was meant to highlight the fact that the ship displaced more water forward; I've reworded that slightly. For the "decision," yes, the latter. I've linked roll to a better article and perhaps clarified what the 10 degrees was referring to. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comments, through the Design section. I appreciate your looking at my concerns above. I urge you to get some help in here to tighten up the prose so we don't have to have laundry lists at the FAC—we're applying bandaids but it really needs a good run-through.
  • "information from the British Naval Attache about the armament of Invincible class was leaked" By whom? If possible, make active voice and specify who leaked.
  • "The three engines were separated in individual engine rooms." How do you feel about "segregated" instead? "Separated" gives me the impression of being taken apart.
  • "though fuel bunkers were expanded to allow up to 2,510 tons of coal" Unclear. Was this done at design time, or at build time as a last minute modification? Or was it done by the crew? As above, it could benefit from being made active voice to specify when and by whom.
  • Footnote 5 seems to go to the wrong URL, as it is the same as footnote 4. It's about the 21 cm SK L/45 and not the 15 cm. Therefore, I cannot verify the data about the 15 cm presented in the article.
  • How do we know the data presented on navweaps.com is accurate? I noted in the sourcing that the author says some of the data comes from "Tony DiGiulian's personal data files". Who is Tony DiGiulian, and how can we trust his personal data files? I would much prefer this type of technical data be sourced to a published work that's been fact-checked or peer reviewed.
  • "reduced to 80 mm in less important areas of the hull" Which are what?
  • "though this only ran the length of the hull between the forward and rear centerline gun turrets" Confusing. "ran the length of the hull" means the whole hull, but then you qualify the statement. Why not just "ran between the the forward and rear centerline gun turrets"?
  • "The forward conning tower had an armored roof that was 80 mm thick and 250 mm-thick sides." Missing parallel structure, rough to read.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Navweaps.com, it's been discussed at

here). I've fixed everything else you pointed out, with the exception of the first. It's unlikely that the person who leaked the information is known; I haven't come across it in any of the reading I've done. I'll see what I can do as far as getting a read through of the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Gene Nygaard (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Can you be more specific please? Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it really shouldn't be that hard to see for somebody familiar with the subject matter, once somebody has pointed out that potential problems exist:

1. Why would anybody be measuring this distance in English statute miles?
2. In particular, why would this be in English statute miles in a German-ship article?
3. Even if it really were in statute miles, those strange-to-the-context units would need to be specifically identified as such.
4. Even if it were statute miles, the precision of the conversion result would be inappropriate for the "approximately" introduction.

That is often the consequence of over-reliance on black boxes such as {{convert}} by people who don't know how to make them work properly. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarrant, to whose book the claim is sourced, specifically uses miles: "...in a position about 30 miles north of the Dogger Bank..." I merely repeated the figure from the source. I could see your objection if the convert template resulted in something like "approximately 30 miles (48.280 km)", but 48 is a perfectly fine number with which to use a qualifier like "approximately." Parsecboy (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be so clueless as to still not get it, if you are trying to edit articles about ships? Try

statute mile, maybe that will help. Then check out the next main section below it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.