Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Lothringen/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15 April 2019 [1].

SMS Lothringen[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is another entry in the series of articles on German battleships - I wrote the article originally in 2010 and then rewrote it with new sources last year, after which it passed a MILHIST A-class review (here). The ship had a relatively uneventful career, missing the Battle of Jutland owing to a badly-needed overhaul. Lothringen was briefly kept by the postwar Reichsmarine and converted into a parent ship for minesweepers. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. A few comments from me:

  • in the lead, perhaps mention that Lothringen is Alsace-Lorraine, which will be more familiar to most readers
    • Good idea
  • link knots in the lead
    • Done
  • I continue to find the mention of HMS Dreadnought out of chronological order to be rather odd. My view is it should be inserted at the chronologically relevant point, rather than in the design section where it presages future events
    • For me, it makes more sense to include it where the article discusses the ship's design, since it has more relevance there, in my opinion, than it does to the ship's activity. I read it as kind of jarring to be talking about the training activities in December 1906, then talk about Dreadnought rendering ships like Lothringen obsolescent, and then go back to training activities.
  • were the 17 cm guns in casemates, have gunshields or were they in open mounts? I assume the 8.8 cm guns were in open mounts?
    • Clarified
  • in the body, keel laying, ship launching and ship commissioning aren't linked
    • Fixed
  • link IX Corps (German Empire)
    • Done
  • "to the North Sea, and continued to the Atlantic" does this mean through the Channel or north of the UK?
    • The former - clarified
  • suggest "By achieving a rough equality of forces, it was hoped that the German Navy"
    • Good point
  • suggest "to retain eight pre-dreadnought battleships for coastal defense under Article 181, two of which would be in reserve."
    • Yeah, that sounds better

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM! Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • The sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, and are formatted consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Comments and suppport from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for another good one. Minor comments as I read:

Design

  • I am not sure that we need the translation of Kaiserliche Marine again.
    • A fair point.

... to 1907

  • "the Kaiser's Schießpreis" - the German Kaiser looks strange with an English possessive, - perhaps "emperor's"?
    • I don't know - Wilhelm II is routinely described as the Kaiser in English.

1908 ...

  • link Austro-Hungarian the first time (delink the next)?
    • Good idea
  • "Kaiser Wilhelm II's" - another strange looking mix of German and English, but no solution

World War I

  • "Additionally, she was in poor condition by that time and required extensive repairs. She returned to service on 14 July and replaced Hessen in the straits in late August." - not sure if repair was done? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch, clarified this.

Lead again as it came up in ERRORS: do we really need a link to battleship? Better avoid sea-of-blue, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments[edit]

We're coming up on a month without any support for promotion. I've added it the Urgents list but this will have to be archived in the next week if we don't gain any ground. --Laser brain (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

It is possible that Gerda Arendt and Peacemaker67 do support promotion, but have not indicated so clearly enough. I only occasionally do ships, but shall take a look at this one over the next day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog, much appreciated. Parsecboy (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made a few copy edits which you will want to check.
  • "She was laid down in December 1902, was launched in May 1904, and was commissioned in May 1906." Optional: the last two "was" are superfluous.
    • I've gone around and around on this, and have been told contradictory things by different people. I always wrote it this way, but Dan and others always either took it out or advised that I do, until Tony told me the opposite in a relatively recent FAC. So I'm going to avoid pulling my hair out and write this the way it makes sense to me :)
  • I have been in similar situations. It is not actually wrong, which is why I marked it as optional. To me it reads clumsily, but if it works for you, then fine.
  • "Like all other pre-dreadnoughts built at the turn of the century," Optional: "at" -> 'around'.
    • Works for me
  • "Already in poor condition by 1916, she was withdrawn from fleet service in February." I am not sure what purpose "already" serves.
    • My point there was that the ship was only ten years old, but I suppose the average reader won't know that's a relatively short time for a ship.
  • Yes, I took that, but, as you suggest, it needs explaining for the mythical "average reader". Feel free to change to 'In poor condition by 1916 after just ten years' service' or similar.
  • "The fifth and final unit of her class, she was ordered under the contract name "M" as a new unit for the fleet." I am not sure about the "as a new unit for the fleet" bit; is it not already explicit?
    • I added a note on this, see if that's clear
  • It is. And I now know something about pre-WWI German naval contracting with which to amaze my friends.
  • "as part of an effort to increase public support for naval expenditures". "expeditures" would normally be singular.
    • Fixed
  • "Admiral Henning von Holtzendorff became the fleet commander. Holtzendorff's tenure as fleet commander" I think that "as fleet commander" can be dispensed with.
    • Good point
  • "Lothringen was sent out into the Little Belt in February 1912". Optional: delete "out".
    • Done
  • "owing in large part due to Kaiser Wilhelm II's displeasure". Not grammatical. You can have 'owing in large part to Kaiser Wilhelm II's displeasure' or 'in large part due to Kaiser Wilhelm II's displeasure'.
    • Good point - fixed

What a well written article. I am impressed.

Thanks Gog. Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well up to FA. Looks as if a lot of work has gone into it. Good stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Date ranges. MOS:ENTO "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space." (My emphasis.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, look at the example they give: 1–17 September. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. There seems to me to be a contradiction; but fair enough, your usage is compliant by extending the example. Teach me to read to the end! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yup - I think the distinction would be if the two halves of the range have multiple, spaced components (so the Battle of Jutland would be "31 May – 1 June") but if not, the dash is unspaced. Parsecboy (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice theory, but one example is "1492 – 7 April 1556"!

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Another ship another day I only have one comment.

  • Unlink Atlantic Ocean by MOS:OVERLINK. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's odd to see this "armed with ten 12-inch (30.5 cm) guns" the rest of the article uses metric units as primary units.
    • The British didn't use metric at the time - the name of the gun was the BL 12-inch Mk X
  • @Parsecboy: At the time you said!!! They barely use metric in the present-day era! :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask you to add a link about the gun unless I missed the first link. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox doesn't uses short tons while the lead does "At full load, she displaced 14,394 t (14,167 long tons; 15,867 short tons)".
    • Fixed

@Parsecboy: Here some other comments. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy hadn't, unless I had missed it, and I didn't know whether you routinely "watched" review pages you have commented on; I don't. I didn't want you to have missed his responses, especially in the light of Lazer brain's suggestion that he may pull the plug. Apologies if you were already onto it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah I think Lazer brain mayn't pull this one out. This nomination has an image, a source review and 3 supports, if he replies to my comments then the nomination has 4 supports. This one is close to an FA-class. But no worries I appriciate your help and don't worry about this one. Trust me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Lazer's concern was the fact that no one had supported promotion yet, but after Gog pinged Peacemaker and Gerda, I think we're out of the woods. Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well this one looks good here is support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:22, 12 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/SMS_Lothringen/archive1&oldid=892651514"