Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mackensen-class battlecruiser/archive1

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Mackensen-class battlecruiser[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote this article 5 years ago, or so, and at the time wrote it off as a perennial GA. Since then, I've gotten access to new sources and was able to significantly overhaul the article. It passed a MILHIST A-class review back in April, and I think it's ready for FAC. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Mackensen_class_battlecruisers_scetch.svg: since the sources given are copyrighted, I would be concerned about this being a derivative work
  • File:SMS_Derfflinger.PNG is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for checking these. For the first one, I don't know exactly where the line between derivative works and new works lies, but I can tell you that it's at least not a direct copy of the sketch in Gröner's book so I'd guess there might be a claim for the artist's own work (I don't have access to the other two). Of course I'd hate to lose such a nice sketch. I fixed the second image. Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose one could also make the argument that the drawings in the books are derivatives of the actual blueprints, which are of course long-since PD. Which is to say that if the drawings in the books constitute enough of an artistic expression to pass the threshold of originality, then surely this drawing passes the same bar. Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The second paragraph of the design section is kinda awkward. I'd suggest rewriting it with the limitations imposed by Tirpitz and the dock/lock sizes up front and the solution ending the para.
    • I'm a little confused by this - Tirpitz imposing the limitations was the solution. But see the change I made.
  • And the last para of that section has a similar issue. I'd suggest that it begin with the protective advantages of the oil/coal storage and say that the designers saw no point in changing that or somesuch.
    • See if what I added gives it a bit more context.
  • German-language sources should state as much in the bibliography.
    • Added
  • Suggest expanding state and national abbreviations for those readers who would be unfamiliar with them.
    • I guess this was done before I started purging the abbreviations altogether. All are removed now.
  • Otherwise, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for reviewing the article, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (on readability): Nice article. There are some conversions missed in the "Armament" section (for us non-metric readers) that should be added. Otr500 (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're referring to the "35 cm" - that's converted earlier in the article. Thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, after another look I saw some range figures that weren't converted - fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ÄDÄ - DÄP

  • As usual a high-quality article with no major issues, which I will gladly support. However, there are some minor glitches I found.
Infobox
  • Blohm + Voss used the & until the 1960s
  • Had it right in the text, and not in the infobox...
  • There were 7 units planned originally, three of which became known as the Ersatz Yorck-class
    • Fixed now
  • Displacement: what does "standard" mean prior to 1922?
  • Draft was 9.3m rather than 8.4m
  • Again, right in the text and wrong in the box - guess I should have gone over it again. Thanks for catching this.
Lede
  • Prinz Eitel Friedrich and Fürst Bismarck were never launched, neither Gardiner nor Gröner list Fürst Bismarck and only Gröner lists Prinz Eitel Friedrich. The article states later on that the unit that was supposed to be called 'Prinz Eitel Friedrich was launched as Noske, mocking the Reichswehr minister (Gröner). Gröner is the only one to speculate about Fürst Bismarck being the name intended for Ersatz A.
  • There is some confusion in the articles on Admiralty-class and Ersatz Yorck-class with regard to the chronology of events, all of which seem to have taken place well before Jutland.
    • The Ersatz Yorck page probably needs to be thoroughly overhauled
  • The second paragraph uses three different ways to convert 'cm' to 'inch'.
    • Fixed now
Design
  • The 'General Navy Department' had a German name, I guess.
    • I'll have to pull it from HRS - don't have it on hand at the moment.
General characteristics
  • 'longitudinal framing' has an article worth linking.
    • Well how about that - I didn't even know the article had been created - I guess you learn something every day!
Machinery
  • The name is Föttinger, not Föltinger (that's a misprint in HRS)
    • Good catch
  • The second paragraph refers to Föttinger gears used in all ships. According to Gröner and HRS they were only used in Ersatz A. HRS mentions geared transmissions which sounds more mechanical as Föttinger's design, which involved hydraulics.
Armaments
  • 'Drh L C/12' - might be worth decrypting
    • A good point - I'll have to check Friedman or perhaps Griessmer (who I think has a glossary of terms and abbreviations)
  • according to Gröner depression was -8° and elevation 16° max.
  • RPC/12?
  • no depression/elevation provided for 15cm guns
  • 'MPL C/13' and 'single pivotal pedestal mounts' are describing the same thing.
    • I don't see this in the article
      • It's the third paragraph. "MPL" stands for "Mittelpivotlafette" i.e. single pedestal mount, if I'm not mistaken.
Construction and cancellation
  • 'on the 30 January 1915' conflicts with the dmy dates used
    • Fixed.
  • There is a bit of a let down at the end of the section, which discusses the British reactions rather than the fate of the class.
    • How does kicking the short para on why the ships weren't finished to the end work?
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I lost track of this in during the holidays - I should be able to get to these issues over the next couple of days (Wednesday by the latest, as I'll have some time in the evening to consult the sources as necessary). Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's called "holiday season", I guess. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Support. Leaning to support; just a few questions.

  • "The Imperial dry docks were only deep enough for ships with a draft of 9 m (30 ft). This meant that an increase in displacement would necessitate a longer and wider hull to avoid a reduction in speed." I don't follow the inference here. If the expected design was close to this draft already, then an increase in displacement would necessitate a longer and wider hull to avoid going over the draft limit, not for any other reason, surely?
  • "The initial design was approved on 30 September 1912, though [...] had to submit any revisions": what does "had to submit" mean? That they knew revisions would be necessary, and those were the people who would have to authorize them?
    • See if what I added makes it a bit more clearer
      That works.
  • The forward draft of 9.3 m (given in the "General characteristics" section) exceeds the dry dock limit mentioned earlier -- was this not a problem?
    • I don't know exactly, but I'd assume this was the planned loaded displacement, and the ships would probably have been emptied of coal and shells to lighten them sufficiently for dry-docking. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Construction was halted about 15 months before she would have been completed": can you give the date on which construction on Mackensen halted? Same for the other three ships, if you have it.
    • I'll have to check Groener and or HRS, but I don't think they gave the specific dates.
      OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just checked both, and neither give the date construction stopped, just the date they were struck from the register. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "4.4 million Marks": suggest linking "Mark" and possibly giving a current (inflated) equivalent in euros, though if 1921 is already into the Weimar hyper-inflation period I wouldn't think it can be done easily.
    • I've experimented with this years ago in earlier FAs, and the general consensus from those who know far more about economics than I do is that this would be exceedingly difficult to do, and the {{inflation}} template we have measures value differently than one would measure large items like this (I'm already exceeding my knowledge here, as I don't understand the distinction ;) ). Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      OK -- I rather suspected this couldn't really be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think note c would be better in the main text; I read the armor section not realizing that it described the Derfflinger-class ships, and that there might have been some differences between their armor and the armor on the Mackensen-class ships.
    • I think that's a good idea - see how I've reworded the section now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I shortened this; I don't think you need to repeat what Gröner says outside the quotes. Please tweak further if you don't think the shortening is appropriate.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All my issues have been resolved, so I have supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 13 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mackensen-class_battlecruiser/archive1&oldid=642523155"