Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/German torpedo boat Albatros/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2019 [1].

German torpedo boat Albatros[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and L293D (talk 20:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of six Type 23 torpedo boats built during the 1920s. The ship participated in the Spanish Civil War and briefly in World War II, firing the first shot of the German invasion of Norway in 1940. The ship ran aground and was wrecked a few days later while trying to avoid Norwegian coastal artillery. It passed a MILHIST A-class review a few months ago, but was archived when I was remiss in responding to reviewer's comments. We've addressed all of the earlier comments and believe that it meets the FAC comments. The article passed its source and image reviews in the previous nomination and, since nothing's changed there, we believe that it doesn't need them to be reviewed again, but we'll abide by the decision of the delegates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support (as the reviewer noted in the nomination statement) - the only point I'd make with regard to my review on the first FAC is on the depth charges. You might just include a line stating something like "Albatros carried an unspecified number of depth charges for use against submarines." But it's not a deal-breaker for me. Nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Added a line about depth charges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Let's try to make it an FA-class this time.

  • The book from Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert & Steinmetz, Hans-Otto has a German title could someone be so kindly to add a translated title.
  • mean draft of 3.65 meters (12 ft 0 in). Same in the infobox, personally I don't think it is necessary to use the "in".
  • by 533-millimeter (21.0 in) tubes The nought isn't necessary.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also just let you both know that World War 1 and World War II are differently written. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, you've got a hell of an eye, my friend!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha! Like Gog always says I have eagle eyes. So don't worry, I'll only use them if I find something despises. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PM[edit]

I reviewed this at Milhist ACR and at its first run at FAC, and all my comments were addressed. I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Note 1: why is "His Majesty's Ship" in title case?
    • Every place I've seen these sorts of prefixes specifically discussed, they're in title case. Even without being attached to a ship's name.
  • This seems inconsistent with the MoS to me, but here isn't the place for me to make an issue of it.
  • Do we know why the range was only half[!] that intended?
    • Not specifically, no; sources don't actually say, but I suspect that the amount of steam consumed by the auxiliary machinery was excessive.
  • "Their crew consisted of". 'crews'?
  • "At least some of the ships were fitted with depth charges, but details are lacking." Why the vague generic statement when we know that Albatros carried them, as she used them against Triton?
    • None of my technical sources even address the issue of depth charges that were probably carried by this class of ships; only an operational history provided any clue that they did so at all. Since I have no idea if any ships other than Albatros carried any and absolutely no idea how even Albatros carried, I figured I had to be vague and generic.
  • "Albatros was laid down at the Reichsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven (Navy Yard)". My German is poor, but shouldn't that be '(Wilhelmshaven Navy Yard)'? (Or, possibly, ' Reichsmarinewerft (Navy Yard) Wilhelmshaven.
    • Yes, I think that I was subconsciously expecting every reader to know where Wilhelmshaven is.
  • "Albatros became the flagship of the 4th Torpedo Boat Half-Flotilla, consisting of her sister ship …". "consisting" -> 'which also consisted' or similar.
    • "which consisted", I think is best.
  • Only if Albatros was not a member of the half-flotilla; was that the case?
  • OK, I see your point now
  • "At the start of World War II, Albatros was used in the defensive mining operations in the North Sea that began on 3 September 1939 that were intended to prevent the Royal Navy from entering the German Bight. Together with three destroyers and her sisters Greif and Falke, Albatros was tasked with anti-shipping patrols in the Kattegat and Skaggerak from 3 to 5 October that captured four ships." Optional: it would read more easily if "from 3 to 5 October" were moved to the start of the second sentence.
    • Had to rework the sentence a bit more than that, see how it reads now.
  • "that captured four ships." Do we know anything about them? Merchant ships? Nationality? Total tonnage?
    • Annoyingly, no.
  • "During Operation Weserübung, Albatros was assigned to …" I realise that Operation Weserübung has been introduced in the lead, but you should do so again here.
    • Really? This isn't a long-enough article, I'd think, to need another link
  • I was possibly unclear. You state "Operation Weserübung, the German invasion of Norway in April 1940" in the lead, and in the article "During Operation Weserübung". Ie, you have information in the lead which is not in the main article.
  • You are correct, but all I did was provide a definition which I don't think that readers will have forgotten by the time that they come to it again.
  • "About 140 soldiers were transferred to the small motor minesweepers R17 and R21 and the former ship was in the lead" Optional: delete "ship".
  • Note 4: who are O'Hara and Haare and how is a reader supposed to evaluate their conflicting accounts?
    • They can't any more than I can. O'Hara doesn't list Norwegian-language sources, but Haarr does and they both list German-language sources. And since neither footnoted that specific fact, I can't weigh one against the other.
  • Fair enough on the latter part of my query, but taking a guess that O'Hara and Haare are historians, possibly naval historians, could that information be conveyed to the readers? If my guess is incorrect, could they be introduced as who/what ever they are.
  • OK
  • "Albatros was escorting the merchant ship SS Curityba while landing men on the island of Rauøy". Was Albatros landing troops, or Curityba?
    • The former, though I suspect neither task was done very well.
  • "and was later assigned to Olav Tryggvason after the Norwegian surrender". If it is the crew who were assigned, then "was" -> 'were'.
    • Collective nouns in AmEng are singular.
How strange. Live and learn.

Nice, as usual.

For information, I respond more rapidly if you ping me when addressing my comments.
Looking good. Three queries clarified above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66 and L293D: - remember to address Gog's comments, let's not have this archived another time ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be truly embarassing to forget it twice in a row, n'est-ce pas?
Thanks for the thorough review, Gog, see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It reads well. Fine work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Does a one-word wave-through really constitute a "review"? I'd be interested to hear whether any attempt was made to test verifiability, and with what result. Even a sentence along the lines "I was unable to test for verifiability in view of the inaccessibility of the source books and the absence of google previews" would let us know where we stand. Were the boring format checks carried out? If so, say so. The single unadorned "pass" tells us nothing. Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The A-class review in which these things were checked is linked at the top.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is FAC, with its own criteria, and we don't, or shouldn't, simply import reviews from other forums. In any event, the sources review in the A class review doesn't look like a clear endorsement. I think the point raised about the multiple pagings of the Haarr references is a valid one that should be addressed. In all other respects the sources appear to meet the FAC criteria as to quality and reliability and there are no other format issues. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? The cite page ranges are about 5-7 individual pages for each paragraph. How is that too much?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Just saw the comment from Brianboulton so I thought I'd chime in. We'd like to see a few bullet points so the leg-work is evident. It's not about trust—it's about documentation. I'd like our reviews to be well-documented for the sake of any interested party. See the comment I just made in the Cardiff FAC at the bottom of the page, for example. --Laser brain (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: The sources are all of high quality and reliable, exactly what you would expect on a German navy vessel of this vintage. No formatting errors I could see. Spot checks AGF'd as Sturm has a long history at FAC. I note that the sources have not changed since they passed a source review during this article's abortive FAC two months ago, nor since it passed an ACR source review, which did include spot checks, six months ago. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dank[edit]

  • "Completed in 1928": Does it say below the lead that she was completed in 1928? - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 22 April 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/German_torpedo_boat_Albatros/archive2&oldid=894451726"