Jump to content

Talk:SMS Blücher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSMS Blücher is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starSMS Blücher is part of the Armored cruisers of Germany series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2013.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 17, 2009Good article nomineeListed
July 28, 2009WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
January 2, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 15, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
June 21, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 10, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that SMS Blücher was the last armored cruiser built by the German Imperial Navy?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 11, 2011, April 11, 2012, and April 11, 2017.
Current status: Featured article

War grave?

[edit]

Although she is not a British ship... is she considered a war grave? If so, I think that this should be mentioned in her article. Cheers V. Joe 16:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armament

[edit]

I corrected the 9.4" British guns to correct caliber of 9.2"; also, my references do not show the 8.2" as superior to the 9.2" in anything, so I removed that parenthesis. Dht 03:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Blücher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
  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]

Captain(s)?

[edit]

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]

Notes

[edit]
  • 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]
  • 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 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]

Armour layout generally

[edit]

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]
[edit]

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]