Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2015 [1].
SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse[edit]
Another early German battleship for your consideration. The ship had a fairly uneventful career, and was too old to see much use in World War I. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
- No DABs.
- I made a few adjustments to the infobox and the main body. However, there are a lot of missing links in the infobox and a few in the description.
- Should be good now
- Move horsepower and boilers to new |ship power= line.
- Done
- Engines returned to propulsion line and a few links tweaked.
- Done
- Link overhaul, target ship, guard ship
- Added
- Is that the one volume of HRS that only has an ASIN?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For whatever reason, the last few volumes of HRS aren't in Worldcat. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would the Germans use standard displacement since the ship was scrapped before the WNT was written?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably was using "standard" as a synonym for "normal", not the technical meaning. Good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget to copy over most of these changes to the other ships in the class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost forgot about this, but did somebody change the horsepower unit on you? Was 13,000 ihp, but is now 13,000 PS. Which is correct?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, see [User_talk:ÄDA_-_DÄP#Recent_edits_to_German_ship_articles here] - in a nutshell, it seems that the English translators for Groener simply changed PS into hp without converting the figures. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Joy, but at least it's not my problem since I only deal with German ships that have nice sensible turbines.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, see [User_talk:ÄDA_-_DÄP#Recent_edits_to_German_ship_articles here] - in a nutshell, it seems that the English translators for Groener simply changed PS into hp without converting the figures. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost forgot about this, but did somebody change the horsepower unit on you? Was 13,000 ihp, but is now 13,000 PS. Which is correct?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget to copy over most of these changes to the other ships in the class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably was using "standard" as a synonym for "normal", not the technical meaning. Good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would the Germans use standard displacement since the ship was scrapped before the WNT was written?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For whatever reason, the last few volumes of HRS aren't in Worldcat. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice article! The only comment I want to make is regarding the use of the letter "ß" (Eszett). In its native German language the ship is spelled SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Große. I understand that in English sources the ship is spelled SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse. I also understand that the article Wiki name therefore should use the English variant. What I am unsure about, does this rule also apply to how the name is spelled within the body of the article? I am asking this because the article makes use of the ß in "Schießpreis" and by referencing the source "Grießmer". This raises my question, if the use of "ß" is ligitimate could the text itself use the correct native spelling variant? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, my sense is that it would be the best option to simply change to Schiesspreis and Griessmer, since it would look odd to have the title one way and the article the other, and there really aren't any good policy-based reasons to use the eszett in the title. Of course I'd be open to arguments to the contrary, but that might be better suited to the article talk page. Thanks for bringing it up. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with a comment. Are there any better maps? The one used could be smaller if it was remade with some the city names etc were left off, etc. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I've been able to find, though I like this one in part because it shows contemporary borders. Thanks Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I figured that's why you used it. Perhaps a Commons mapper will come along at some point. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review -- refs look reliable, just a couple of formatting suggestions:
- I think you can lose "Vol. 47" for the RUSI Journal -- there's only on RUSI and, for consistency, you don't use volume number for The United Service.
- I think I'd rather keep it - when I've tried to track down these old journals in Google books for other articles, the volume number is a useful way to find them. And The United Service does have a volume number.
- Yes, both have volume numbers (per the References section) but in the citations you use the volume in one but not the other -- should be consistent there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, right - probably a legacy from whatever article I copied the citation from, which used more than one volume. Thanks.
- Yes, both have volume numbers (per the References section) but in the citations you use the volume in one but not the other -- should be consistent there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'd rather keep it - when I've tried to track down these old journals in Google books for other articles, the volume number is a useful way to find them. And The United Service does have a volume number.
- You could use "Hildebrand et al" instead of "Hildebrand Röhr & Steinmetz" (which without a comma or semicolon after Hildebrand looks more like two authors than the actual three anyway). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2015 (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. Graham Beards (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.