Talk:Helgoland-class battleship

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Helgoland class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Since the article seems to be in American English, I've changed the tonne measurements to metric tons. If my assumption is correct, then, the two infobox items should be armor and draft, as well
   • There were a lot of little niggling things (missing unit conversions, punctuation, etc.) that would take longer to note in a list, so I have fixed them. I did notice some inconsistency to conversion of gun sizes given in inches: in the lead they were converted to mm but cm everywhere else, so I changed those in the lead. If that's not right, please feel free to change.
   • General characteristics, P1, S2: the they after the semicolon is ambiguous. I'm sure it refers to the Helgolands, but coming right after the mention of the Nassaus, it's not clear. Also, since the Helgolands displacement is compared to the Nassaus, what is it?
   • Propulsion, P1, S2: same as above: These could be taken to refer to RN steam turbines

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • There seem to be no images at commons of Thüringen, but there are a couple of Oldenburg that might be better than having three photos of Ostfriesland; File:SMS Ostfriesland.JPG seems to be the least useful to the article. Also, have you considered File:High Seas Fleet 1st and 2nd battleship squadrons HD-SN-99-02145.JPG? Might be a good addition to the "History" section, especially if the Helgolands are up front

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments (which don't affect GA nomination):

• In the Design section, there's almost an assumption that the reader has read and/or is familiar with the Nassau class, which may not be the case. Perhaps the Helgoland class details could be discussed and all of the comparisons to the Nassau ships could be consolidated into a separate section. Also, you might consider comparisons between the Helgoland ships and to the later German dreadnought classes, too.

Just the few prose issues above keep this from passing. I'm placing on hold for seven days, but I'm sure you'll be able to address them easily enough. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I've got the prose issues you pointed out fixed, and I switched the conversions to all be metric-first (since the Germans used the metric system). I was thinking that at some point (when I have the free time), I'd write a section similar to this one that would expound more on the design process (i.e., how the Nassau class design was improved/reworked into the Helgoland design). Comparisons to the later designs would also be helpful. That'll have to wait at least until next week though; papers for school to write and whatnot :) Thanks for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I didn't add the Oldenburg photos since they don't really show the ship; they're more about the Kaiser and his entourage, the ship is more of just the background. Especially since there isn't any mention in the text of the Kaiser's visit to the ship. Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

German Dreadnoughts???

Hey, "Dreadnought" was a British class of warships. How can a German vessel be member of the Dreadnought class while sailing under the German flag? 93.104.40.40 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

From the first sentence of the dreadnought article:

The dreadnought was the predominant type of 20th-century battleship. The first of the kind, the Royal Navy's Dreadnought had such an impact when launched in 1906 that battleships built after her were referred to as 'dreadnoughts', and earlier battleships became known as pre-dreadnoughts.

Dreadnought can refer to more than just the British class of warships, but the new pattern of battleship design that many nations followed copying it.--86.129.7.162 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

86.129.7.162, you are right. Thanks for the help! —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Illustrations

Similar articles (St Vincent-class battleship, HMS Neptune (1909), Colossus-class battleship (1910), Nassau-class battleship, etc...) do not have "An illustration of ..." in the images. In fact, I don't remember seeing any article where images are captioned "An illustration of ..." (besides this one). It is my opinion that it's unecessary (readers aren't that dumb, come on) and just verbose. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Some readers are viewing these articles on mobile devices with small screens, and it may not be readily apparent that the images in question are illustrations, not actual photos. There are plenty of articles that describe illustrations like this one does - SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II comes to mind. Thankfully, your opinion is just that, an opinion. Parsecboy (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

See also Kaiser-class battleship, König-class_battleship, Ruggiero di Lauria-class ironclad, SMS Erzherzog Albrecht, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You're sadly wrong again. (link corrected below) shows that the first picture is not an illustration but an actual photography. The second image is not just a random illustration but a drawing by the RN, so it would be better identified (if it's necessary to) as such, like here. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Check that link, it's just to the empty search page. In any event, if it is a photograph, it's so heavily retouched it might as well be an illustration. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Or it's just a reproduction of an old photograph and the quality isn't exceptional (that's what the German text says). Try http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/_1497365456/?search[view]=detail&search[focus]=1 (copy the whole link, somehow it doesn't display correctly because of the [] in it). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it's very heavily retouched - the original is this one: http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/1497365456/1497365995/_1497366002/?search[view]=detail&search[focus]=36 . Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Both images I see (http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/1497365456/1497365995/_1497366002/ , nos. 2 and 3) look similar enough - if you wish, do put the "original" one in the article, but it still is a picture, which is something that doesn't require being pointed out to the reader (we agree it's not an illustration/drawing). I will change the caption of the other one so that it fits what is shown, like at Nassau-class_battleship#Battle_of_Jutland (it's a drawing by the RN). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)