Talk:SMS Nautilus (1871)/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:SMS Nautilus (1871)/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Nautilus (1871)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: {{User|Parsecboy}} 23:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 20:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. Review to follow shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• No duplicated links
• :File:SMS Albatros (IZ 1872-109 n HPenner).jpg Needs a US PD tag which should be fine as this was published in 1872, other images correctly licensed
• Good catch
• Article is stable
• Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

• "Her third and final tour in the Pacific began..." Suggest rejigging this sentence to make it chronological
• Reworded
• Lede says her Pacific tour ended in 1888 but she moved to African waters in 1887, which doesn't work
• Fixed
• Suggest adding in the image caption that Albatross is a sister ship
• Done
• You say Kaiserliche Werft in the infobox but Königlich Werft in main text
• It's a bit tricky, since right in the middle of the build period, the German Empire was proclaimed - so it is unquestionably correct to say that the ship was laid down at the Königlich Werft, but it was also correct to say that it was completed by the Kaiserliche Werft. And it's excessive to get into the nitty gritty in the intro/box, since they should be a summary
• The range figures don't appear to be in the main text (and thus not cited)
• Good catch, added

• While the lede says the ships were ordered by the Imperial Navy, this section says it was the Prussian Navy (and there is no mention of the Imperial Navy outside of the lede)
• Have clarified in the body
• "which were intended" > "which was intended"
• Done

• What's the fleet plan of 1867? With everything in the article so far suggesting she would be a gunboat from the off, this was a surprising turn!
• Added a note
• "4 June 1873" duplicated year
• Removed
• "On 8 August..." awkward to begin a paragraph with a date - every paragraph in First deployment to the Pacific also begins in this way
• I don't think it's awkward, but I can certainly vary it a bit more
• "senior officer of the two captains"
• Done
• "the ships returned to Santander the fall" capital T missing at the start of this sentence, and possibly a word missing towards the end here
• Good catch
• Link consuls
• Done
• "to she conduct surveys" needs a rejig
• Think that got rewritten once too many times
• "But a typhoon struck Yokohama"
• Done
• If we can't name the captain of Elizabeth it might be best to remove the reference to avoid confusion, as right now one might read this and believe Valois to be that captain
• Reworded to reduce ambiguity
• Do we know what the "intervention to prevent attacks" was?
• Not specifically, no - presumably a landing party went ashore, but Hildebrand et. al. don't specify
• "through the 16th" for consistency suggest changing to "through 16 September"
• I really don't like repeating months in the same sentence, it's very clunky
• "the power struggle..." Some context is needed here - what power struggle where, and why does is this relevant to Nautilus?
• Added a link to Samoan Civil War, but I don't want to get too far afield
• "She then departed" > "Nautilus then departed"
• Done
• The impact on the formation of German South West Africa is interesting - is there any information on what exactly in the report impacted this?
• Hildebrand et. al. don't provide any specifics
• "re-designated as a cruiser" should this be a link to cruiser?
• Sure
• "On 13 August, Nautilus}" sp
• Fixed
• "on the 15th" ibid previous suggestion on dates
• Done
• There's some deviation in whether you capitalise "Cruiser Squadron" or not?
• Fixed
• "later to visit Japan" > "later visited Japan"
• Done

• References look good. There is an overwhelming reliance on Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz, which I think would stop this article from going any higher than GA, but the source itself appears reliable and of good quality.
• In looking to expand the amount of sources used in the article I found the following, which you might find useful in fleshing out the article a little:

:*[https://archive.org/details/preparingforwelt0000sond] Preparing for Weltpolitik: German Sea Power Before The Tirpitz Era, Lawrence Sondhaus (1997)

:*[https://archive.org/details/bismarckbritishc0000ayde] Bismarck and British Colonial Policy: The Problem of South West Africa, 1883–1885, William Aydelotte (1974)

:*[https://archive.org/details/partitionofafric00kelt] The Partition of Africa, John Keltie (1893)

:*[https://archive.org/details/oapen-20.500.12657-31439] Pacific Strife: The Great Powers and their Political and Economic Rivalries in Asia and the Western Pacific, 1870–1914, Kees van Dijk (2015)

::*There's not much to add from any of the sources, but I have added a couple of citations to Sondhaus and a couple of tidbits from Aydelotte. Keltie has nothing to add, and Dijk is just wrong: {{SMS|Albatross|1871|6}} was sent to lower the flag, alone, in June 1886. Iltis had originally raised the flag in August 1885, and Nautilus had no involvement in the affair.

{{ping|Parsecboy}} Hi, that's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Took me a while to get to everything, but I think it's all addressed now. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Parsecboy}} Looks good to me. Ships like this participated in an incredibly interesting period of history! Passing as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Pickersgill-Cunliffe}} - indeed they did! I wrote a series of articles on French cruisers of the 1870s/1880s a couple of years ago, and was sometimes surprised about what I learned in the process (for example, the activities of {{ship|French cruiser|Forfait}} in Madagascar). Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Parsecboy}} No problem. Going to dip into ACR for a bit now but always happy to review such articles. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)