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) 13:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because of the positive feedback during GA review. I now want to take the article to the next level. Please let me know how to further improve the article. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I saw a mix of ways to indicate the language; I would be consistent about italicizing the German words.
  • Can you point me to an example please? I thought I was consistent. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Another way this is commonly done is to indicate the translation in the prose but put the first German word in parenthesis with a language link: ex. Imperial Navy (German: Kaiserliche Marine), and then subsequently leave out the german link: i.e. Captain (Kapitän zur See) since its (mostly) obvious that the word is German.
  • DoneMisterBee1966 (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In the references, use the ((de icon)) template after the ref tag but before the citation so we know which ones are German vs. English. Kirk (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - Excellent work so far, these are mostly nitpicks.

• I'd suggest adding a bit of personal info to the lead (which should function as a stand-alone summary)
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I know why you underline Ernst in the lead and in the "Early life" sections, but it's still jarring to me. Can we do without it?
  • We could, but unless someone makes this a show stopper I want to retain it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The ranks of Tiesmeyer in the early life section are confusing - was he a Kapitän zur See in 1910 or a Fregattenkapitän? If KzS was his final rank, it would be better to simply refer to him as Fregattenkapitän in the sentence, or make clear that he hadn't been reduced in rank or something. Also, is it known which ship he commanded?
  • should be clearer now MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better now - I take it you can't find what ship he commanded? Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, SMS Mainz MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excellent. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "2nd Battle Squadron of the High Seas Fleet (II. Geschwader)" makes it sounds as though II Geschwader is the translation for High Seas Fleet. You might consider adding (II. Geschwader, Hochseeflotte).
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a little nit-pick: the ((convert)) can be tricky - for conversions that describe an object (in this case, Bayern's guns) you'll want to add the "adj=on" parameter, which inserts a hyphen into the conversion. I fixed it here, but you'll want to keep that in mind.
  • Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is personal preference, but I normally use the contemporary names for places (like Danzig instead of Gdansk) - I'm speaking about the Baltic islands seized during Operation Albion.
• Again, personal preference here, but I really don't like "the" before a ship name, especially if the prefix is used (think of it this way: expanded, what it says is "the His Majesty's Ship", which is grammatically incorrect).
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Pocket battleship" is an invention by the press - I'd suggest calling Admiral Scheer either by the designation at the time "panzerschiff" or "armored ship", or its later designation as a heavy cruiser.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There are some WP:ENGVAR issues - for instance, you've got centimetre and calibre, but also favorable. This should be standardized.
  • done I tried settling on UK English MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "eye- and ear-witness account" - I think "eyewitness" is sufficient here.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though he only listened to the conversations over the artillery intercom? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Eye-witness" is something of a term of art - in general, it means that the person was present during the event in question. I don't know that I've ever heard the term "ear-witness", which is mainly what I was getting at. You could simply say "...is attributed to his account" and drop the witness bit altogether. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You introduce Gunther Lutjens the second time he's mentioned, not the first. This should be reversed. You also don't need to link him again in the Rheinubung section.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In the second para in the Rheinubung section, the secrecy of the mission had been blown long before. The ships were observed by the Swedish cruiser HMS Gotland (1933) in the Kattegat, and subsequently overflown by British reconnaissance aircraft in Norway.
  • added MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that information sourced to Grutzner p. 179 or another page? Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cited! MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, excellent work so far, MisterBee. Parsecboy (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All issues have been addressed, so moving to support, pending resolution of the issue brought up by Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm sorry. I like the article, especially since I'm comfortable with German, but I can't support it for A-class; it's a sea of German, to the point where most Wikipedians would probably say it's a violation of our policy to use English. I didn't make the policy, and I'd rather not summarize the many, many discussions on the talk page (WT:TITLE) that got us there; there are many good arguments on both sides, and people interested in the question should probably read them. Even though most of the German terms are translated, it's going to give readers a headache (other than German speakers and amateur and professional historians). You have many tools available: you can use an English term and link it to the article on that term, which can immediately give the German term; you can give a list of German terms in the notes; you can point readers to our glossary of German military terms. Only give the German in the text if the term actually appears in the German form quite often in English sources. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair assessment I have to say. I have to withdraw the request then. I don't have English sources to rely on. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what Dan is saying; I think he means that many of the German words are superfluous (like "Preußischen Central-Bodenkredit-Aktiengesellschaft", "bedingt tauglich", for example), and that only the ones commonly used should be retained. Parsecboy (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean that this can't pass, only that it needs to lose some German to get there ... the German that doesn't often show up in English sources that are scholarly, but intended for people who don't read German. I'm not the expert on this, I can only say that this article appears to go too far, and most of the German needs to move to the other side of a link or into a Notes section. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, "Preußischen Central-Bodenkredit-Aktiengesellschaft" was the name of the bank he worked for. This bank through a number of mergers is now part of the Eurohypo. I think naming the bank adds value to those readers who want to research on the subject. "bedingt tauglich" is a formal medical rating in the German military service for over 100 years. Even when I was examined for military service they used the term "bedingt tauglich". I am willing to discuss how to best address or lessen the German content but I am a bit reluctant to eliminate it. It would deprive the article of information to the knowledgeable reader. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see both sides of this. I am happy to help with whichever direction you decide to take. Rumiton (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The manual of style section on foreign terms (here) says to use foreign words "sparingly," which is somewhat vague. What you might do is reverse the order for the ranks and (like Captain [Kapitän zur See]) and then use Captain throughout the article. That's just an idea though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for moving a lot of the German words into the notes ... that's a huge relief. I may be taking my duties here too seriously, but my thinking is that if we walk into FAC with something that looks just completely wrong to them, then that means we all get extra scrutiny. No reason to make our lives harder. For this article and also future reference, I'll defend the German that's left in the article this way:
  • a list with a greater density of German than this one just passed FLC. (Of course, the text part is shorter, so the total number of German words in the text is probably less.)
  • English-speakers reading about Nazis German military in WWII often know some of the German words, and don't mind seeing German in the text. It just goes along with an interest in WWII.
    • Comment This may be the English WP but a Nazi implies a certain political affiliation which Lindemann did not have. In Germany calling a person a Nazi can get you into a costly law suit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I should have anticipated that that was offensive; informally, the word simply means "Germans in WWII" over here. (Even the best writers, such as Christopher Hitchens, use it that way.) I struck. - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main writer was willing to work with us and move many of the words into the notes. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• We're almost there; a few more notes. I'm doing some copyediting; feel free to revert.
• I removed the underline under "Ernst". I know what the underline means in German, but it's almost unknown in English, it's not supported by style guides or MOS, and there's no way it'll fly at FAC. See for instance Paul McCartney ... we assume that the reader isn't going to get confused when they see James Paul McCartney, because we just told them he's known as Paul.
  • Acknowledge MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't we just say "Carmer Street"? Would you translate "street" into anything other than Straße?
  • We can, I added a translation because it is still a valid postal address in Berlin. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Please remove the single quotes around the translated words and phrases. Also, any punctuation, such as a period, goes before the [Tr X] superscript.
  • Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you may well get an objection at FAC that the itinerary of his first cruise is too detailed. I don't have an opinion.
  • Let's wait and see MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oberleutnant zur See needs a translation (unless you did it before, in which case use the English translation).
  • Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Kiel/Friedrichsort": please use something other than a slash, per WP:SLASH.
  • Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Per MILMOS (I think), lowercase all the English-language ranks unless the rank occurs just before someone's name. (Even then, it's lowercased if there's a comma before the name.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Whenever there's an English translation for a rank that makes it reasonably obvious what the German rank was (Captain at Sea, for instance), use the English term without the translation after the first occurrence.
  • Done, I beleive it applied to Captain at Sea, Lieutenant Commander, Commander, Vice Admiral and Grand Admiral MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Your English is excellent, of course, but FAC-compliant English is hard to learn. I'll make you a deal: I'll copyedit the whole thing, and keep copyediting the articles you bring to A-class and FAC, if you'll check the diffs, ask questions for anything that looks odd, and try to learn from what I'm doing.
  • Acknowledge More than fair MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• My British dictionary is showing "rear admiral", but I've been told it's hyphenated in BritEng.
  • The English WP article on Rear Admiral doesn't use a hyphen. Please advise what you want here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 1940 he ranked second out of Crew 1913 and was considered an outstanding leader.": Ranked second in what sense, and considered by whom?
  • I reread both Von Müllenheim-Rechberg and Grützner. The ranking criteria within the German Navy are not defined in these books. All that is mentioned is that he initially ranked 5th in his class and by 1940 he ranked 2nd in his class. It does not explain how the evaluation process worked. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, what's important is who he was ranked by or what he was ranked in, not what the method was. What "class" are we talking about? Was there a yearly school? If it was a naval ranking, we need to know either what the ranking award was given for or what the name of the it was, otherwise we probably need to delete it as too vague to be verifiable. - Dank (push to talk) 12:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The ranking pertains to his class of 1913 which was called "Crew 1913" (note this is also the German term used) MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Coordinate graphics shouldn't be displayed inline (((coord|60|19.49|N|5|14.48|E|display=inline))). I think the issue came up in one of Cam's FACs, maybe Haruna or Hiei; I don't remember the details.
  • See the paragraph above WP:ICONDECORATION. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay I read the paragraph but I am unsure about the consequences you want me to take here. Remove the coordinates from the article? Move them to a footnote? Ideally I would like to use the coord template without it rendering the globe, which I haven't figured out how, that is done. Please comment. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The makers of the coord template haven't provided an option not to display the gaudy globe, so it's useless inline (or even in the notes section) at FAC. You could make an argument that it wouldn't be out of place in the External links section, since it is in fact an external link and some templates in that section have icons. I'll ask at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I posed a question here as well to globe or not to globe MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "This quotation is cited by Burkard Freiherr von Müllenheim-Rechberg, who at the time was in the rear gun director watching for Suffolk and Norfolk and listening to Schneider's gunnery commands over the fire control intercom. It was most likely reported by a surviving crew member who overheard the conversation between Schneider and Lindemann over the gunnery telephone.": I think maybe this should go in a note.
  • Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• ""X" turret": soon after this you write 'X' turret, and I've usually seen single quotes in our ship articles.
  • Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm guessing "St. Nazaire" doesn't have a full stop (period) in BritEng, but I could be wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done To avoid confusion I use Saint-Nazaire MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know what a "leading seaman" is.
  • I added a link MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Lindemann's Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was the 94th presentation within the Kriegsmarine.": Guys, this doesn't sound right to me; anyone have something better?
  • How does "Lindemann was the 94th recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in the Kriegsmarine" sound? Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, I made the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "St. Annen Church": Again, no period in BritEng I think.
  • Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, done. I can support when you've had a chance to deal with these. Here's the diff of my work. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. For both "vice admiral" and "rear admiral", which are spaced in AmEng (even when they appear right before a noun), can someone tell me when they take a hyphen in BritEng? (And if they take a hyphen, then check the text for both, MisterBee.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update (I prefer not to strikeout because then you can't tell the difference between points where I changed my mind and points that were dealt with, and I want my stuff to be easy to read in case I link back to the discussion in the future): everything's been dealt with except (possibly) "vice admiral" and "rear admiral", icons in the text, "This quotation is cited by ...", "In 1940 he ranked second ...", and the one that's going to take some work: whenever there's an English translation for a rank that makes it reasonably obvious what the German rank was (Captain at Sea, for instance), use the English term without the translation after the first occurrence. I'm fine with giving the English and German (in either order) the first time the rank is mentioned, but usually, it will be possible for you to choose an English translation so that if you use the English translation after the first occurrence, Germans won't have to wonder what rank is meant and go hunt for your translation. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I asked questions on two of these points at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Btw, User:The Rambling Man said in the FLC I linked above that it's his understanding that, per WP:ACCESS, all German words (maybe other than proper nouns?) should go in a ((lang-de)) template. It's possible we'll be asked to make that change at FAC. That's not as ugly as it sounds, because when the template is working right (it doesn't always), it only displays "German:" for the first templated word; after the first occurrence of the template, it just displays the words in italics. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Been going back and forth on whether I want to insist on a couple more English sources ... I don't think I have a choice, per our policy V (actually WP:NONENG). We're talking about the captain of probably the most famous German battleship who went down with the ship; there must be a big pile of useful, scholarly English-language sources. This article makes only minor use of English sources. If you're not currently living in a country with easy library access to a wide range of sources, then hopefully we can get someone to help out, and if not, I'll do it. I've asked for help on this at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only English book I own on the subject is "Boyne, Walter (1997). Clash of Titans: World War II at Sea. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-83914-8." I believe Von Müllenheim-Rechberg's book was translated to English and I knw that Parsecboy owns a copy (I only own the German version). The 2010 published book by Grützner (to my knowledge) is the only book published that covers Lindemann's early life. I don’t think that we have another choice here (to my knowledge). MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's see if anyone responds at MIL. It seems likely to me that scholarly English-language sources exist. For some questions a reader might have, clearly a German source would be preferable, but not for all questions. - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it would help, I can transfer the citations of von Müllenheim-Rechberg's book from the German edition to the English one. Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Nate. I just have the policy concern, and for that, all we need is something from sources originally in English supporting a few of the main points. But if you want to go on to FAC, MisterBee, then citing the English edition of that book would help a lot, as well as finding a few more English sources. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do they need to be originally in English? I never had that understanding (I always thought NONENG was an extension of the general principle behind WP:V, in that ease of verification by our readers/editors should factor into the decision on how many foreign-language sources should be used). Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, I've replaced the German version with the English translation of von Müllenheim-Rechberg's book, and added a few citations to another English-language source. I don't think we can get around using Grützner as the core of the article, as it appears to be the only biography written on Lindemann. We can probably replace or double-up a few more citations with other sources, but nothing dramatic. Parsecboy (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, are you happy with the sources for A-class? - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Are you asking me? If so, then yes. I don't see a way around relying heavily on Grützner, as his appears to be the only biography. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • On second thought, there are a couple of other issues: the link to bismarck-class.dk should go, as it's not reliable. It's also double-citing material, so it's not necessary. Second, I seem to recall IMDB as having been the subject of several contentious discussions over whether it should be used as a source on Wikipedia. There appear to be a number of books on Google Books that might be used to replace it (see here). Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Nate. I believe there's only one of my issues left, I think I'm just not understanding something: MrB, when you say "ranked second out of Crew 1913", do you mean he had the second highest naval rank of the graduating class of 1913, the incoming class of 1913, or is it not exactly the graduating class or the incoming class? - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this issue was explained above. The cadets who graduated in 1913 were known for the rest of their careers as "Crew 1913." It's a bit like the "Class of '68." Being ranked second means that Lindemann had achieved the second highest navy rank of all the ex-cadets of that year. Rumiton (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graduating or incoming? The text says: "On 26 March 1913, Lindemann traveled with his parents to Flensburg-Mürwik for his medical examination at the Naval Academy at Mürwik. The strong financial background of his parents made him a suitable applicant for the Imperial Navy ..." and "After a second examination he was accepted on probation, and Lindemann became one of the 290 young men of Crew 1913" Sounds like he was applying, not graduating. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, you are right. It's the induction date, the year they joined the navy. Rumiton (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I made a guess on the last of my issues, I added "(incoming class of 1913)" after the first "Crew 1913" since the term is used a lot, and I'm going to assume we're talking about "naval rank" rather than some special award. That's it for me, although I'd like to see Nate's points (just above) dealt with. - Dank (push to talk) 11:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments: Good work so far, I have the following suggestions/observations:
  • according to the Featured article tools, there is one dab link that needs fixing: [1];
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • external links all appear to work as advertised (no action required);
  • according to the tools, some images have alt text and others don't. I would like to suggest adding it in for all for consistency: [2] (suggestion only, not a requirement);
  • I think that "Naval Captain" is incorrectly capitalised - in this case it is not being used as a proper noun hence it should simply be "naval captain";
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Secondary school" is incorrectly capitalised, it should just be "secondary school";
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is not grammatically correct: "it's base" - it should be "its base" as it is not a contraction;
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forrest" is spelt incorrectly, it should just be "forest";
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crew 1913" - I think that this should be "1913 crew", unless it was a specific term for a graduating class or some such;
    • It is the name of the joining class so I think Crew 1913 is okay MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, in that case I agree. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marks" is incorrectly capitalised, it should just be "marks";
    • It is the name of the currency MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I understand that, but I believe that it is an improper noun, just as "dollars" is. Its not a war stopper for me, though, so I leave it up to you to decide. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is awkward: "Lindemann talked with his uncle and heard his seafaring adventures in Asia's Far East." Firstly the Far East is not Asia's, indeed the term relates to it being far to the east of Europe. Secondly there appears to be a word missing, e.g. "heard of his seafaring adventures";
    • addressed by Rumiton MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is repetition in this sentence: "With the German declaration of war in August 1914, all further training at the naval academy was terminated and the normal compulsory officer examination was terminated." (the word terminated is used twice);
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1913 Crew" is incorrectly capitalised and seems inconsistent with "Crew 1913" which is used elsewhere;
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Skeleton crew" is incorrectly capitalised, it should just be "skeleton crew";
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Staff Officer" is incorrectly capitalised, it should just be "staff officer";
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if it is wise to use the German language template in the short citations. It might be simpler just to display it in the long citations in the References section. Currently having it in each citation is a bit distracting and including it in the refs means it only needs to be listed once for each reference (suggestion only);
  • ": A lot of what we know today about Bismarck's final days is attributed to his eye- and ear-witness account". Incorrect use of a colon here, I think. It should just be a full stop;
  • in the same sentence, I am not sure about using the phrase "a lot of what we know today". Perhaps reword to: "A lot of what is currently known about...";
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attributed to his eye- and ear-witness account". I'm not sure about "ear-witness". It sounds awkward and, to be honest, I've never heard this term used before;
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is some inconsistency here: "4th Gunnery Officer" but also "first gunnery officer" and "2nd wireless telegraphy officer" - should be consistent in the style used - both in terms of using words or numerals and in terms of capitalisation;
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Notes, the date ranges are incorrectly spaced. For instance "1859 – 1868" should be "1859–1868", although "20 January 1896 – 26 April 1945" is correct and doesn't need to be changed;
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Note 1, "1st cousin" should probably be displayed as "first cousin". AustralianRupert (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of my concerns have been addressed. I am happy to support this article for A-class, although I do agree with Dank and Parsecboy that some of the German words could be trimmed. I'm not really in a position, though, to decide what should go and what should stay because I don't speak any German. Sorry if that sounds like sitting on the fence! ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Support
• It is a well researched article, but as with some of the editors above, I have concerns about the way the German terminology is treated in the text. The first paragraph of the World War I section, for example, becomes really hard to read in this format. I'm not sure that having the German in the paragraph is essential for the typical reader, particularly as much of it (and I'll admit, my German is only basic) looks like a straightforward translation issue (i.e. there's no particular doubt over what English term is meant by the German). I'd be strongly inclined to note most of these German phrases, or, as suggested above, move them to the other side of a link. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Much happier! Thanks, Hchc2009 (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment regarding German terms I added a section called translations to the article. Here you will find my translations of the German terms used for which I believe we don't have a semantic correct equivalent in English. I retained some German terms, quotes and ranks in the flow of the text. The terms that have been translated are in single quotes. Please let me know if this helps the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'll reply in my section. - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on brackets The phrase Preußischen Central-Bodenkredit-Aktiengesellschaf which is explained above as being the name of the bank his father worked for, can this be displayed other than being in brackets? I know it's incredibly picky, for which I apologise, but with brackets being predominantly used for translations, it looks like Preußischen Central-Bodenkredit-Aktiengesellschaf is the German for bank. NtheP (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I was just looking at that and groaning. I would prefer we use the English name for the bank and either give a translation in the notes section or link to a stub article that gives the German name. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I added a note explaining what the bank was. The bank seized to exist in 1930 and I feel that a literal translation would only make things more complicated. Please have a look if this works for you. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that OR is undesirable. I did a gsearch on "Prussian Land Credit Company" and "Prussian Land Credit Corporation"; some will translate the name wrong, of course, but the best I could tell, the latter was most often used as the English name of the bank. See if you agree. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used www.leo.org to translate the name term by term and the British English equivalent is best matched by "Prussian Land Credit Company" MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That could be right, since I got a lot of hits on "Prussian Land Credit Companies". I'll trust your judgment. - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine as it stands now, thanks. Looking very good. NtheP (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. 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.