Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Schlesien/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2019 [1].

SMS Schlesien

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another article on a German battleship - this one had a relatively eventful career, despite having been made obsolescent by HMS Dreadnought before even entering service. Schlesien was present at the Battle of Jutland during WWI, and was one of the few ships to survive into the postwar navy. Still in active service during WWII, she took part in the invasions Poland in 1939 and Denmark and Norway in 1940, and ended up shelling advancing Soviet forces in 1945, before being scuttled in Swinemunde. I wrote this article in 2010 and overhauled it significantly in August 2018, and it went through a GOCE copyedit in September. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as the normal displacement, don't seem to be cited anywhere
  • If you're going to include a country for London, probably makes sense to do so for Ratingen and Bonn as well

CommentsSupport from PM

This article is in fine trim, so just a few comments from me:

  • the bit in the lead that relates to her guns being used after sinking isn't supported by the body
    • Fixed
  • the dimension conversions in the body should be ftin not decimal feet
    • Fixed
  • do we know how many engines she had? This isn't explicitly covered at present
    • Clarified
  • the standard displacement in the infobox isn't covered by the body
    • Fixed
  • the installed power doesn't match between infobox and body
    • Fixed
  • the infobox says that the 8.8 cm guns were casemated, but the body says pivot mounts. What's the diff?
    • Casemates is correct
  • the belt and deck armor measurements don't match between the infobox and body
    • Fixed
  • link Kaiser Wilhelm Canal
    • Done
  • link Wilhelmshaven
    • Done
  • link Kattegat
    • Done
  • link Baltic Sea
    • Done
  • suggest "Two resultfruitless fleet advances"
    • Works for me
  • suggest "During the ensuing operation, Schlesien was the second ship in the IV Division"
    • Sounds good
  • link SMS Schleswig-Holstein
    • Done
  • "night march" is an odd phrase Perhaps "run"?
    • Someone must have fixed this already
  • rmeoved
    • Ditto
  • I can't get the sense of "so they could be used ashore, with a battery of 10.5 cm (4.1 in) and 8.8 cm (3.5 in) guns" do you mean that not only were the main guns removed, but also the secondary batteries? perhaps insert "along" after the comma?
    • Must have gotten rewritten a few too many times - the 10.5s and 8.8s were the only guns left aboard the ship
  • suggest "She had made several training cruises in the Baltic..."
    • Fixed
  • Swinemünde is italicised, but we're not referring to a ship here are we? Either way, link?
    • The apostrophes are right next to the brackets - must have been a typo
  • suggest "only carried the remaining batteries of 10.5 cm..." if that is what is meant?
    • This should be clearer with the fix about the armament revision in 1918 - let me know if this is still a problem
  • suggest "her senior commandersofficers"
    • Fixed
  • suggest "new heavy cruiser Deutschland"
    • Done
  • suggest "went to Cape Verde in the central Atlantic."
    • Done
  • suggest "she went on a tour of North..."
    • Good idea
  • "six of her 15 cm guns" where did these come from? Which begs the question of what went on with her main battery after she came out of reserve in the inter-war period
    • These were added in 1926-1927 - have added details on that from Dodson.
  • "she was ordered to go protect" is a bit colloquial, perhaps drop "go"
    • Done
  • there is a typo in the link to German destroyer Z39 causing a red link
    • Good catch
  • the point in the lead about the use of her guns after she sank needs rectification
    • Fixed

That's me done. Nice work on this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nate, were you planning to respond to these? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yeah, I got a little side-tracked with other things - I'll get to these today. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source review

Although I don't want to give the impression I'm cutting Nikkimaria's grass, I thought I'd add an additional technical source review from a naval perspective. The sources used for this article are all of high quality and reliable, and what you would expect for a German ship of this vintage. Lenton's German Warships of the Second World War p. 38–39 provides further information about the armament changes in 1944, bunker capacities and some other minor detail. If you don't have it to hand I can add information from my copy or post it here for you to add. It would be preferable if Dodson was consulted for comprehensiveness, as it seems to be the most recent scholarship on this class. Spotcheck not conducted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some details on the armament revisions from Dodson - if Lenton has anything to add to it, let me know. Parsecboy (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lenton p. 39 reckons she had a coal bunker of 436 tons. Also says "In 1944, the 5.9 in and 3.5 in guns were removed, and the AA armament increased to six 4.1 in (6 × 1), ten 40 mm (10 × 1), twenty-two 20 mm (4 × 4 and 3 × 2) guns". This obviously conflicts with Dodson, so not sure how you'll handle that. Also, fn45 has a = between the page nos. instead of an ndash. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note with the details from Lenton - Dodson himself says there are conflicting details on the ship's armament, and given the chaotic state of things in Germany at the time, I doubt we'll ever know what's right. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I’m fine with that. Sources ok by me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOD

Looks good. Support subject to these minor modifications. Nice article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ed17

Support, after a few copyedits I've made and assuming Peacemaker's comments above are addressed. Usual excellent work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

Support. I made two ill-links, don't know if we need red links for all these commanders who don't even have an article in German, and felt that once two "then" came in fast succession. No reasons not to support. The red link icebreaker has an image not on the commons but in German, - for the one creating that article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda - the commanders are all German admirals, either while they were aboard the ship or later in their careers. Eventually they'll have articles. Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

I'll have a look in this.

  • She displaced 13,191 t (12,983 long tons), and had a full-load displacement of 14,218 metric tons (13,993 long tons; 15,673 short tons). the article uses long and short tons do the article should use both or just long tons?
  • Should the first foodnote not have cite?
    • Explaining an initialism is a WP:BLUE thing
  • Danzig is overlinked
    • Sarastro fixed that
  • the German navy was reorganized as the Reichsmarine according to the Treaty of Versailles. Shouldn't the "German navy" be capitalised?
    • No, it's not used as a proper noun here - the proper name would be "Imperial Navy" (in that that's the translation of Kaiserliche Marine) - think of it as instead being "the navy of Germany"
  • In early 1944, her anti-aircraft armament was strengthened considerably with the addition of two 40 mm (1.6 in) guns and twenty 20 mm (0.79 in) guns; there is already an "(1.6 in)" before this sentence
    • Removed
  • Dreadnought's revolutionary design rendered every capital ship of the German navy obsolete, including Schlesien. same as above. Shouldn't the "German navy" be capitalised?
    • No, as above
  • She then returned to training ship duties, and from January to March 1940 served as an icebreaker to allow U-boats to operate. Where did she operated as an icebreaker?
    • Hildebrand et. al. doesn't say, unfortunately - presumably in the Baltic, but I can't say for sure
  • Icebreaker service again summoned the vessel to active service from January to April 1942. Again Where?
    • As above
  • The year's autumn maneuvers were confined to the Baltic and the Kattegat, during which another fleet review was held in order to prepare for an Austro-Hungarian delegation that included Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Admiral Rudolf Montecuccoli. Is there a specific month when this happend? Because this could make some readers confused if you use seasons in the article, especially the people in the southern hemisphere. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope, I have not to wait longer than the French battleship Bretagne A-class review. Also hope this was useful. Cheers. ;) CPA-5 (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How was that? :P Thanks for reviewing the article :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: We have three supports here, but I just wonder would it be possible to get one more pair of eyes on this? Perhaps someone unfamiliar with the subject material? If all else fails, I may recuse and review it myself in a day or two. (Just to clarify, I have no concerns here, I'd just like a little more commentary) Sarastro (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment Aside from these last points, unless I'm being stupid, we are still missing an image review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Also, I removed the duplink for Danzig but there are a couple of others that maybe could be looked at. The only other issues I would suggest considering are consistency over alt text (some images have it, some don't; it should really be one or the other) and perhaps explaining the meaning of "five-minute ship" which may be obvious but could be clarified. Sarastro (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarastro - I've removed the other dup links and added alt text to the images lacking it. There was a note about the 5-minute ship nickname, which I've moved closer to make it easier to see. Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:
  • Fixed, good catch
Each image seems to be pertinent to the section it is in. ALT text seems adequate although I am mentally wondering whether it would be better to just say what the image is (as opposed to what it shows). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't really have a sense of how to write good alt text (which is why I don't generally do it) - I'm open to suggestions if anyone has any. Thanks for checking these over. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SMS_Schlesien/archive1&oldid=879396336"