353:. Sorry Parsecboy; this article has an awful lot to recommend it, but I can't support its promotion with a section which will be incomprehensible to most readers owing to the lack of context, and is basically wartime propaganda of questionable relevance to modern readers. I'd be open to discussing this further, and examples of recent works on the ship which also make a big deal about the ship being mentioned in these radio broadcasts would be helpful, but at best this warrants mentions in the body of the article rather than verbatim transcripts, and even then context is required. I also don't think that the short paragraph in 'Media portrayals of sinking' warrants its own section.
240:"A suggestion to sever the port rudder with explosives was dismissed by Lütjens, who stated "We cannot endanger the ship with measures of that kind." He felt that the danger of damaging the screws, which would have left the battleship helpless, was too great.": ... was dismissed by Lütjens, as damage to the screws would have left the battleship helpless. - Dank (
369:
are meant to be very accessible ... Main Page stuff. By the time you've got all the readers to understand the significance of the report, translated all the text, explained the impact that such reports had on the German people ... you've gone past the limits of the attention spans of the readers who have made it this far in the article. Remember
780:"The two German ships rained shells on Prince of Wales" - this sounds like a huge number of shells were fired, yet it's later stated that Bismark only fired 93 shells during the entire engagement. This kind of wording is appropriate for the Battle of Surigao Strait, but seems an over-statement here.
368:
Nick is on the right track, but my support for his position is strictly as a copyeditor and as an observer of
Featured Articles ... that is, I'm not saying that information about the Wehrmachtbericht shouldn't be in Knowledge (XXG), it should. But never that amount of detail here; Featured Articles
178:
This is my second attempt here at FAC for this article. The primary concern over the article the last time around was the prose; the article has since had a copy-edit from one of the GOCE editors, which should have helped address those issues. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this
387:
Those are all good points - I wasn't wedded to the stuff to begin with, so I don't see a problem with removing it. I've removed the direct quotes and added a short summary to the paragraph about media portrayals, and merged that into the previous section
237:"The explosion caused serious damage to the port rudder assembly; the coupling was badly damaged and the rudder was then unable to be disengaged ...": The coupling on the port rudder assembly was badly damaged and the rudder could not be disengaged
881:
was Lütjens chief of staff and next to Lütjens and
Lindemann the most senior officer on Bismarck who had already commanded Gneisenau. He was very much involved in the decision processes and posthumously received the German Cross in Gold.
122:
117:
584:
751:"Bismarck was the first of two Bismarck-class battleships built for the German Kriegsmarine shortly before World War II" - this is a bit misleading given that neither of the ships was completed before the war.
754:
Yeah, I had some trouble with the wording on this; "the late 1930s" isn't entirely accurate either. Perhaps the best course of action is to just remove that bit, since the construction timeline is in the next
220:"... loosened collision mats stemming the flood from the forward shell hole. Flooding increased, and eventually ...": loosened collision mats, so that flooding from the forward shell hole increased; eventually
296:"One of the holes is in the deck, on the bow's starboard side. The angle and shape indicates it was fired from Bismarck's port side and struck the starboard anchor chain.": The hole was fired? - Dank (
217:"it was high speed and erratic manoeuvres to evade the torpedoes that inflicted more serious damage.": the high speed and erratic manoeuvres used to evade the torpedoes inflicted more serious damage.
764:
really suffer "heavy damage"? From memory, she was back in action after a few weeks of repairs, and the article states that she was combat-ready not long after the Battle of the
Denmark Strait
606:
Not sure that "heaviest" is the proper word when describing her size. As you noted in the lede, only
Vanguard was bigger and you might as well say it outright in the main body.
391:
By the way, is anybody else having trouble editing today? I keep getting a "loss of session data" error message, even though the edit window was open for less than a minute.
256:
It's not exactly wrong, but "Dr" is more common than "Dr." in BrEng, so mostly as a matter of avoiding frequent "corrections", we're usually going with "Dr" at FAC. - Dank (
492:. He either didn't see it or didn't care to answer. At this point, it's probably best to just remove the map, as I don't think we'll get a timely answer from him.
88:
83:
92:
40:
813:
I'm surprised that there's no material on the desperate mood among the ship's crew after her rudder was jammed given that this is covered in several sources
373:, too; Knowledge (XXG)'s style, and nowhere more than in Featured Articles, is not to regurgitate primary sources, but to summarize them according to their
644:
I'd probably use largest again since the following clause discussing
Vanguard uses the only other formulation that I can think of off the top of my head.--
75:
234:"Fifteen aircraft comprised the second attack, which was launched at 19:10": the second attack comprised fifteen aircraft and was launched at 19:10
30:
17:
821:
The paragraph dedicated to James
Cameron's assessment of the ship seems excessive: I don't believe that he's an authority on this kind of topic.
891:
869:
847:
830:
799:
721:
707:
693:
679:
653:
639:
621:
570:
519:
501:
482:
458:
444:
428:
414:
400:
382:
362:
338:
319:
301:
261:
245:
209:
188:
170:
138:
748:
The article is really well written - great work. I think that this is the most interesting of any of the battleship articles to date.
143:
350:
79:
507:
179:
article is an example of
Knowledge (XXG)'s best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article.
609:
A note explaining why an US Navy pilot was involved in the search for
Bismarck 6 months before Pearl Harbor is needed.
603:
Link stem, boiler, superheated, shaft horsepower, knot, nautical mile, the 37mm and 20mm AA guns, catapult, list, trim
542:"(who was serving on the destroyer Tartar at the time.)" Seems to me the period should be after the closing parens.
71:
64:
580:
887:
783:
You're probably right, though I'm having a bit of trouble trying to reword it. Do you have any suggestions?
772:
Note C seems unnecessary given that this material is in the body of the article (where it works quite well)
744:
Sorry about the one week delay; I was much busier last weekend than I expected to be. Here are my comments:
717:
689:
649:
617:
410:
330:
816:
Added a couple of lines on that, and the demoralizing effects of the messages from
Marinegruppe West.
565:
478:
293:, "if true, the only instance in history of one battleship torpedoing another".: Break that one up.
703:
675:
635:
515:
497:
454:
424:
396:
315:
184:
166:
883:
713:
685:
645:
613:
576:
374:
684:
Good point, how about displaced more than any battleship other than
Vanguard, or some such?--
370:
204:
Continuing. "St. Nazaire": Probably drop the full stop (period) since this is BrEng. - Dank (
865:
843:
826:
795:
440:
406:
358:
196:. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (
557:
474:
290:
878:
699:
671:
631:
511:
506:
For what it's worth, I've added a fair-use image depicting the discovery of the wreck (
493:
450:
420:
392:
378:
334:
311:
297:
257:
241:
205:
197:
180:
162:
835:
I've cut it down and merged it into the previous paragraph - how does that read now?
281:
had exploded 20 feet off the bow and rendered the starboard tube useless—the closest
53:
488:
Hmm, I had asked the creator of the image during the last FAC, and a month later he
351:
Talk:German battleship Bismarck#Edit warring over references in the Wehrmachtbericht
109:
861:
839:
822:
791:
436:
354:
510:) - the FUR should be fine, but you might want to look at it to double-check.
435:
OK, I've struck my oppose, and will provide a full review over the weekend.
626:
Links added, along with a note on Ensign Smith and a direct mention of
419:
I wonder what the issue was - glad to hear I wasn't the only one :)
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
405:
I got several of those messages last night, so it wasn't just you.
658:
But then you run into problems with the definition of "largest" -
630:
in the body - as for "heaviest", do you have any alternatives?
123:
Featured article candidates/German battleship Bismarck/archive2
118:
Featured article candidates/German battleship Bismarck/archive1
575:
I fixed the "p. 538–540" issue (fixed a few other bits, too).
670:), for instance. "Heaviest" can only refer to displacement.
270:"opened fire. Almost immediately after,": opened fire, then
473:- on what source(s) was File:Rheinuebung_Karte.png based?
277:
fired two torpedoes from her port-side tube (a shell from
226:
I thought I had gotten rid of all of that "Hitler called
148:
612:
Other than these minor issues, the article looks good.--
786:
How about "the two German ships continued to fire upon
489:
307:
105:
101:
97:
57:
253:
You don't use periods in title abbreviations in BE?
289:) and claimed one hit—a claim which, according to
901:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates
545:Ref 117, "p. 538–540" should be "pp. 538–540"
223:"attempted to find him": attempted to find her
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
310:are the edits. Thanks for helping with these.
907:No further edits should be made to this page.
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
860:My above comments have now been addressed.
534:Has the image Nikki mentions been removed?
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
127:
698:What do you think about the wording now?
228:Bismarck 'him' so we have to" nonsense...
349:for now per my unaddressed comments at:
130:
115:
7:
24:
490:blanked his talk without replying
377:and set them in context. - Dank (
767:Good point - removed that bit.
449:Thanks, I look forward to it.
1:
306:Everything should be fixed -
250:Search throughout for "Dr.".
877:Maybe worth mentioning? KzS
214:Search throughout for "St.".
31:featured article nomination
924:
72:German battleship Bismarck
65:German battleship Bismarck
722:19:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
708:15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
694:15:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
585:03:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
571:23:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
502:16:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
483:16:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
459:13:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
445:10:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
429:13:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
415:16:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
401:13:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
383:11:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
363:09:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
339:16:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
320:13:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
302:03:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
262:14:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
246:00:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
210:00:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
189:13:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
171:13:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
904:Please do not modify it.
892:07:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
870:11:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
848:11:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
831:08:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
800:11:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
680:20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
654:15:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
640:14:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
622:02:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
520:02:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
285:came to a direct hit on
36:Please do not modify it.
775:I think you're right.
56:15:07, 22 July 2012
879:de:Harald Netzbandt
537:Didn't you look? :p
331:standard disclaimer
666:(and shorter than
174:
156:
155:
915:
906:
662:was longer than
568:
563:
560:
530:from PumpkinSky
159:
128:
113:
95:
48:The article was
38:
923:
922:
918:
917:
916:
914:
913:
912:
911:
902:
788:Prince of Wales
762:Prince of Wales
566:
561:
558:
291:Ludovic Kennedy
86:
70:
68:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
921:
919:
910:
909:
896:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
819:
818:
817:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
790:" or similar?
778:
777:
776:
770:
769:
768:
758:
757:
756:
749:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
610:
607:
604:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
552:
551:
550:
549:
543:
540:
539:
538:
525:
524:
523:
522:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
433:
432:
431:
389:
342:
341:
324:
323:
322:
294:
271:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
248:
238:
235:
232:
231:
230:
221:
218:
215:
212:
176:
175:
161:Nominator(s):
154:
153:
152:
151:
149:External links
146:
141:
133:
132:
126:
125:
120:
67:
62:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
920:
908:
905:
899:
898:
897:
894:
893:
889:
885:
884:MisterBee1966
880:
876:
872:
871:
867:
863:
859:
849:
845:
841:
837:
836:
834:
833:
832:
828:
824:
820:
815:
814:
812:
804:Works for me.
803:
802:
801:
797:
793:
789:
785:
784:
782:
781:
779:
774:
773:
771:
766:
765:
763:
759:
753:
752:
750:
747:
746:
745:
743:
742:
723:
719:
715:
714:Sturmvogel 66
712:Looks good.--
711:
710:
709:
705:
701:
697:
696:
695:
691:
687:
686:Sturmvogel 66
683:
682:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
656:
655:
651:
647:
646:Sturmvogel 66
643:
642:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
624:
623:
619:
615:
614:Sturmvogel 66
611:
608:
605:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
586:
582:
578:
574:
573:
572:
569:
564:
556:
555:
554:
553:
547:
546:
544:
541:
536:
535:
533:
532:
531:
529:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
486:
485:
484:
480:
476:
472:
460:
456:
452:
448:
447:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
417:
416:
412:
408:
404:
403:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
385:
384:
380:
376:
372:
367:
366:
365:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
347:
340:
336:
332:
329:on prose per
328:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
304:
303:
299:
295:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
263:
259:
255:
254:
252:
251:
249:
247:
243:
239:
236:
233:
229:
225:
224:
222:
219:
216:
213:
211:
207:
203:
202:
201:
199:
195:
191:
190:
186:
182:
173:
172:
168:
164:
158:
157:
150:
147:
145:
142:
140:
137:
136:
135:
134:
129:
124:
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
66:
63:
60:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
903:
900:
895:
874:
873:
857:
856:
787:
761:
740:
739:
738:
667:
663:
659:
627:
596:
594:
593:
577:Br'er Rabbit
548:Sure should.
527:
526:
471:Image review
470:
469:
379:push to talk
345:
344:
343:
335:push to talk
326:
298:push to talk
286:
282:
278:
274:
258:push to talk
242:push to talk
227:
206:push to talk
198:push to talk
193:
192:
177:
160:
144:Citation bot
69:
49:
47:
35:
28:
838:Looks good
407:Mark Arsten
475:Nikkimaria
333:. - Dank (
700:Parsecboy
672:Parsecboy
632:Parsecboy
512:Parsecboy
494:Parsecboy
451:Parsecboy
421:Parsecboy
393:Parsecboy
312:Parsecboy
181:Parsecboy
163:Parsecboy
760:Did HMS
741:Comments
664:Vanguard
660:Bismarck
628:Vanguard
597:Comments
595:Support
528:Comments
283:Bismarck
279:Bismarck
194:Comments
139:Analysis
54:Ian Rose
50:promoted
875:Comment
858:Support
559:Pumpkin
388:header.
371:WP:PSTS
327:Support
131:Toolbox
89:protect
84:history
862:Nick-D
840:Nick-D
823:Nick-D
792:Nick-D
437:Nick-D
375:weight
355:Nick-D
346:Oppose
287:Rodney
275:Rodney
93:delete
755:line.
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
888:talk
866:talk
844:talk
827:talk
796:talk
718:talk
704:talk
690:talk
676:talk
668:Hood
650:talk
636:talk
618:talk
581:talk
567:talk
516:talk
508:here
498:talk
479:talk
455:talk
441:talk
425:talk
411:talk
397:talk
359:talk
316:talk
308:here
185:talk
167:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
562:Sky
200:)
52:by
890:)
868:)
846:)
829:)
798:)
720:)
706:)
692:)
678:)
652:)
638:)
620:)
583:)
518:)
500:)
481:)
457:)
443:)
427:)
413:)
399:)
381:)
361:)
337:)
318:)
300:)
260:)
244:)
208:)
187:)
169:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
59:.
33:.
886:(
864:(
842:(
825:(
794:(
716:(
702:(
688:(
674:(
648:(
634:(
616:(
579:(
514:(
496:(
477:(
453:(
439:(
423:(
409:(
395:(
357:(
314:(
273:"
183:(
165:(
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.