Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm

SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm/archive1

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article back in 2009 and it passed GA and a MILHIST A-class review around then - it sat for a few years until the past couple of weeks, when I knocked dust off and expanded it significantly. This was the first modern, ocean-going battleship completed by the German Navy; she served as the fleet flagship from 1894 to 1900, participated in the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion in China, and was sold to the Ottoman Empire in 1910, where it gained a new lease on life (sort of). The ship saw action during the Balkan Wars and was sunk in early 1915 by a British submarine. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the FAC criteria. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced in the article - for example, the May 1890 date - while others differ slightly, particularly in converting back and forth from metric
  • I think I've got everything sorted out in the infobox.
• Check alphabetization of References. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good eye - I had missed Hall/Halpern being out of order earlier. Thanks for checking these Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

• Move ihp and boilers to ship power entry.
• I'd really like to see some links in the infobox for triple-expansion engines, knots, nautical miles, ihp, etc.
• The convert template defaults to BritEng, but you're writing in AmEng. And why are you inconsistent in abbreviating measurements?
  • Should all be fixed - as for why some are abbreviated and some not, I prefer to spell out a unit the first time it's used.
    • Fair enough.
• I've taken the liberty of changing your MT conversion to |t|LT to avoid the pointless conversion into standard tons. I've also added ftin to the size conversions to avoid the round feet and |1 to the armor thickness to get the three significant digits.
  • Thanks.
• Shouldn't Greek Navy be capitalized as a proper noun?
• In the main body, triple-expansion engines, quick-firing gun, and torpedo tube needs to be linked.
• ihp needs to be converted
• She was the first ship of the class to be launched, which she was on 30 June 1891 Awkward.
• Link mark, ironclad, Kiel Bay, the naval review for Vicky's Bday, center-battery ironclad, condenser
  • There isn't one specifically for that review - do you mean the generic Fleet review (Commonwealth realms) article?
    • Exactly
      • Added.
• Isn't Kirkwall the local town for Scapa Flow?
  • Yes, but Scapa hadn't been developed into an RN base yet.
• Is that a stray apostrophe after the name of the royal yacht?
• Is there a link for Inspector General of the Navy?
  • Not that I'm aware of.
    • Might be worth a redlink as it's certainly notable enough for an article.
      • Well check that out. Turns out there's Generalinspekteur der Marine
• The link for afterdeck has no text at all
• Hyphenate mid January
• Has her wreck been located?
  • It's on wrecksite.eu but I don't know that it's a good enough source for FA (especially since the history section was copied directly from an old version of this article).
• What's second command flagship? --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • German squadrons were organized in two four-ship divisions, with the squadron flagship (which led the first division) at the head and the second command flagship (which led the second) at the rear of the line.
    • OK, now move what you just wrote into the article as a note or something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • After quite a bit of fiddling with the maddening template, I have it worked out. Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, Sturm. Everything not specifically addressed should be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

• All images appear to be properly licensed (mostly PD)
• File:Dardanelles defences 1915.png: description page could use some cleanup

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Cleaned up the Dardanelles map - thanks for checking these Curly Turkey. Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comments Was the ship ordered under a specific letter A, B, C or as an Ersatz? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• She was Panzerschiff D - it's in the first paragraph of the construction to 1895 section. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok, I must be blind. I quit for the day MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Support
  • Can notes [a] and [c] be combined?
    • I think [c] can actually go since MrB added the translation bit for the name - I moved the link to Prince elector there from the note though.
  • Partially disarmed on the Ottoman's entrance into the war? Might be a good thing to explain in the lead. ("Being in severe disrepair, the ship was partially disarmed ...")
    • Sounds good.
  • So some of the Ottoman ships "had been on a summer training cruise since July, and so were prepared for the conflict" ... yet most of the fleet remained in port because they were in "very poor condition"?
    • I think you're reading it wrong - the ships were in poor condition by the end of the war (which is to say they were not maintained during the war), not at the start.
      • Ah, I see. My bad. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rest of the crew were picked up by a pair of torpedo boats" -- from where? I thought she was being escorted by only one torpedo boat. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second TB was on patrol in the area - tweaked to reflect this. Thanks for your review Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good, thanks Parsec. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Dan - on this edit, I'm not so sure, since the ship was named Barbaros Hayreddin, not Hayreddin Barbarossa - might it lead to some confusion? Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name of the ship appears 4 sentences after this, but it wouldn't hurt to put it somewhere closer. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about here? Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. Where their names are mentioned again 3 sentences later, you might want to change that to "the two battleships". - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The bottom line here is that I don't have any fixed opinion on how the "Barbaros Hayreddin" problem should be handled, but I know that reviewers object to something along the lines of "Turgut Reis was named after Turgut Reis" on the grounds of repetition; I couldn't let that stand. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright. Thanks again Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.