Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moltke class battlecruiser/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 SandyGeorgia 21:30, 16 June 2009 [1].

---

Moltke class battlecruiser

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Moltke class battlecruiser/archive1

This article passed GA in March and MILHIST A-class in April (reviews here and here, respectively). I feel the article is at or close to FAC, so here we are. Thanks in advance to all comments and suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• SupportComments. The article is close to FA standards but needs some work:
  1. The ship was unsuccessfully offered for sale to the West German government in 1963; without a group willing to preserve the ship as a museum, the ship was sold for scrapping in 1971. The main text of the article does not mention these dates.
  2. Forty-four million marks were allocated for the 1908 fiscal year, which created the possibility of increasing the main guns to ... I do not like this clumsy sentence. I suggest "Forty-four million marks allocated for the 1908 fiscal year made it possible to increase the main guns to ..."
  3. there were many weight increases due to the increase in the size I do not like two "increase" in this sentence.
  4. Blohm & Voss received both contracts in 1909 ... However, further I read The contract for "Cruiser G" was awarded on 17 September 1908 ... What is the difference between receiving a contract and being awarded a contract? And also what does it mean The contract for "Cruiser H" was ordered on 8 April 1909 ? The terminology and dates here are confusing.
  5. While serving as the second command flagship, the ship carried an additional 3 officers and 25 men. Does it mean additional to the standard crew or to crew increased by an additional 13 officers and 62 men.?
  6. For consistency 52,000 shaft horsepower 76,795 shp and 71,275 shp should be converted into kilowatts as well. Please, also convert psi into atm/bar/Pa (one of three).
  7. Taking into account that Goeben existed until the middle of 1970s, do any newer photos of her exist? For instance, color photos would be of a particular interest.

Ruslik (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think I've got everything fixed, take a look at the new wording and let me know if it's better. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You sometimes use {{Auto shp}} and sometimes not. This leads to inconsistent results. Ruslik (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I switched them all over to {{convert}}; I didn't see any where the results were different numbers, just kW and MW. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I can support now (I also changed the last image to a one made in 1946). Ruslik (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Provisional support - Prose looks good from what I can tell, but as the article seems to rely primarily upon a single source, I hesitate to fully support; I'll watchlist this discussion and watch for more comments. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I could easily switch some of the references to Staff's book in regards to the design information to Groner's book, would that be better? I had written the majority of that section before I had Groner's book, and never thought to diversify the references. I could also play around with the service history cites so it relies less on Staff's book. Thanks for the suggestion. Parsecboy (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is it possible that the Groner book contains information the article is currently lacking? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I looked through last night, and it does not appear that any information from Groner's is missing. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, that alleviates my concerns about the research. Thanks for the response. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Image review: images check out fine, verifiably in public domain. Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comments - first batch for first two sections
• Introduction
  • "...built between 1909–1911" would be better as "...built between 1909 and 1911". The same comment applies for the scrapping dates for Goeben later in the section.
  • "The ship remained on active service until 1960, and only slightly modified from her original configuration". I don't think the joining "and" is needed here.
  • I think the actions of the two ships in WWI should be brought together after the colon in the first sentence of the second paragraph and then their fate after the war dealt with later.
  • "The ship was unsuccessfully offered for sale to the West German government in 1963; without a group willing to preserve..." As the lack of a willing group to preserve Goeben is not directly related to the West Germany governments unwillingness to buy the ship, I feel the semi colon should be replaced with a full stop and a new sentence started.
    • I missed this comment earlier, it has been fixed as you suggest. Parsecboy (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Development
  • Suggest using number format for 44 million marks rather than text. Link mark to German gold mark. What about the allocation of this sum "created the possibility" of increasing the size of the guns? Presumably the bigger guns were more expensive.
  • Spelling of "caliber" in this section and "calibre" in the infobox is inconsistent.
  • You start a sentence with "However" - what is this contrasted against?
  • You write about increasing the calibre of the "guns" (plural) but say that the "28 cm gun was sufficient to engage even battleships." (singular). This seems a little awkward.
  • Explain how and why a 28 cm gun was sufficient to engage "even battleships" - range, weight of shell, accuracy, thickness of enemy armour, etc.
  • Explain why consideration of the numerical superiority of the Royal Navy's reconnaissance force, led Tirpitz to argue that the number of main guns on a ship should be increased instead of the calibre.
  • "due to the growth in the size of the citadel, armor thickness, the additions to the ammunition stores, and the rearrangement of the boiler system." The use of the definite article several time in this sentence (as my emphasis) suggests that the reader already has specific knowledge of these changes which they haven't. Removing the highlighted "the"s would remove this problem.
  • Italicising of "Cruiser G" and "Cruiser H" is inconsistent.
  • link Prussian to Prussia the first time it's used (with regard to Moltke) rather than the second.
  • "...she was launched...". Does the German navy use the feminine form for naval ships? Previously, Moltke and Goeben have been referred to as "the ships".
  • "SMS" used for the first time here when referring to the commissioning of Moltke but not in the first sentence when the ships' names are first given.
• --DavidCane (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review. I changed "forty-four" -> "44" along with the link to gold marks, calibre -> caliber, italics for "Cruiser G/H", the link to Prussia, the "the"s, etc. The sentence beginning with "However" is in contrast with the previous sentence; I'm assuming that you're implying that it's not correct grammar to do so?
  • I'd just say that, in my opinion, a semi colon would be better in front of "however". --DavidCane (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• As to your suggestion about explaining the reason for why the 28cm gun was sufficient to engage battleships, that may be a little difficult. Navweaps, a fairly comprehensive reference for naval weaponry, only states these guns are credited with penetrating the 5" and 6" side armor belts of the British Battle Cruisers, which isn't sufficient for what you'd like to see added, since the battleships of the period had armored belts that were at least twice that thickness. The range and weight of shell is in the armament section. It may be worth mentioning that the Nassau-class battleships were armed with 28cm guns though. I don't think anything more can be said as far as why Tirpitz wanted more rather than larger guns (without straying into OR), since the sources I've got don't go any further than what's already in the article. As far as I know, the German navy does use "she"; "Schiff" is neutral, but ships themselves are always "die" (as in, "die Moltke"), which is the feminine definite article. Parsecboy (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • On the issue of guns v battleships I was thinking that some explanation along the lines of what's at Dreadnought#Main_armament_power_and_caliber might be helpful. --DavidCane (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that, since none of the sources at my disposal say what you'd like to see added the article, any attempt to write an explanation based on what the sources do say and my interpretation of that data would be synthesis and probably OR, and thus out of the question. Until I can find a source for why exactly Tirpitz wanted more instead of larger guns, I'd rather not add anything more to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• More comments on next three sections
• Design - General characteristics
  • "fully loaded". Isn't the correct term "under full displacement"? Should link displaced to displacement (ship).
  • "They were considered to have handled well..." suggest change "They were considered to handle well..."
  • "...heavier seas..." suggest change to "...heavy seas..." as heavier is a comparative.
  • Is the loss of 60% of speed at full rudder unusual?
• Propulsion
  • As these were German ships, were the boilers actually rated in pounds per square inch? As pascals hadn't been defined, I would guess it would be something like kilograms per square metre or grams per square centimetre.
  • "After 1916, the boilers were supplemented with tar-oil." Presumably, although it doesn't say, the boilers were usually coal-fired and they were supplemented to operate with tar-oil, from 1916.
  • "4 propellers" should be "four propellers".
  • "ships' powerplant" should be "ships' powerplants"
  • "negligibly lower". suggest "only slightly lower"
  • "Fuel consumption on the 6-hour forced trial was 0.667 kg per hp/hr at 76,795 shp (57.266 MW), and .712 kg per hp/hr at 71,275 shp (53.150 MW) for both ships" This might be useful information, if we knew how much fuel the ships could carry, but it would be more understandable if it was represented as kg (or tonnes) of fuel used per hour at each of the two operating levels.
• Armament
  • "This was 7.5 degrees less than in the preceding Von der Tann, and[,] as a consequence, the range was slightly shorter, at 18,100 m (19,800 yd), than [the][to] 18,900 m (20,700 yd)[—the maximum range] of Von der Tann's guns" - suggest the edits indicated in square brackets.
  • If Dora and Emil were the rear turrets, then, presumably, the fore turret was Anton and the two side turrets were Bertha and Cäsar in accordance with the German_spelling_alphabet#Spelling_alphabet. It might be worth making this clear.
  • Were the ships able to fire a broadside of all 10 guns or was one of the side turrets blocked by the superstructure or other side turret from firing across the ship?
  • spell out semi-AP in full. The first "both" in this sentence is unnecessary.
  • link superfiring to superfire.
  • What is "Krupp cemented and nickel steel"?
• --DavidCane (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Design section: "fully loaded" is synonymous with "at full displacement. All other suggestions implemented. 60% speed loss at hard rudder was pretty typical for German ships of the period (the Helgoland-class battleships were the lowest, at 54% speed loss, the Nassau-class battleship the highest at 70%. The battlecruisers were more consistent: all of them lost 60% speed, save the Derfflinger-class battlecruisers, which lost 65%. I don't have the figures for British ships of the period.
  • If it was a common characteristic (which should be cited) then that could be explained. In its present format, the sentence seems to indicate that this was, in some way, remarkable. --DavidCane (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I added this footnote; what do you think of it? Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Gröner's gives the boiler pressure in atmospheres, to which I've changed the article. The tar oil was sprayed on the coal in order to make it burn better. I've added a note stating as much. All other suggestions implemented.
• "B" was initially "Bruno"; other than that I've added the turret alphabetical names. Yes, over a limited range, the wing turrets could fire across the deck, but I don't have exact figures for the train limits. I believe there were also significant blast damage, but I can't recall where I read that. I can't tell you what Krupp cemented nickle steel is, other than it's a steel alloy that incorporates nickle, and that it's not produced by the Cementation process. It's mentioned in the 1910 Britannica Armor plates, but it doesn't actually give any information as to the process Krupp used. It's described here with more details about the process. At some point, an article on Krupp cemented steel may be a good idea. Parsecboy (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not a metallurgist, but this seems to suggest that the article at Krupp armour needs to be amended as it already seems to describe the process of manufacturing Krupp cemented armour. --DavidCane (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• To reply to the two comments not yet struck: Groner's only gives those figures for fuel consumption, and I don't know how to convert it to what you suggest; I tried doing so, but the result isn't right. Until I can find specific information about the ships' full broadside range (and a source for the citation, of course), I'm not going to add anything about it to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I've made my attempts at copyediting; please change what you would like back if it is wrong/worse, as I'm not a great copyeditor (I just go with what sounds better!)
  • An explanation of when "9% heeling" is would be nice. I might write battleship articles, but I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. :)
  • "However, the conflict reignited less than a month later on 29 June; this meant that the ships would have to remain in the area." What's the relationship here? The conflict starting up again did not force them to stay; it's not like they were doing a lot anyway (they were visiting ports).
  • "Following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in July 1914, Rear Admiral Wilhelm Souchon recognized the imminent outbreak of war, and so immediately sailed to Pola for repair work for Goeben. The ships were pursued by British forces, but Goeben and Breslau managed to evade them and reach Istanbul by 10 August 1914." What happened in between repairs and Pola? (or did she depart Pola for Istanbul?)
  • "Known as Yavuz for short, she was made the flagship of the Ottoman Navy." Could this be better worded as "Popularly known as Yavaz, she was designated as the flagship of the Ottoman Navy."
  • "In 1936 she was renamed TCG Yavuz and remained the flagship of the Turkish Navy until 1950, although the ship was stationary in Izmit." If she never moved from Izmit, which is what this sentence implies (to me, at least), why is there a 1946 picture of her in Istanbul? ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, Ed. The copyedits look good, so no problems there :) It was supposed to be 9 degrees heeling, but I must've gotten my wires crossed in between reading it and typing it in. Goeben and Breslau were sent to the Med as a response to the outbreak of war; I'd assume the High Command was attempting a show of force to influence the situation. Sort of like how the US Navy sends carrier battle groups to troubled areas in an attempt to influence things nowadays. The ships did indeed leave Pola once the repairs were completed, and headed straight for Istanbul/Constantinople. The ship was stationary after 1948, which I had not specified in the article, for some unknown reason (of maybe some interest, the photo of her in Istanbul in 1946 was during the visit of USS Missouri. Thanks again for the help. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• My comments have been addressed and the article looks good to me, so it has my full support. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• More comments from David Cane
• Service History - Moltke
  • "The ship met her end when she was scuttled, along with the rest of the High Seas Fleet in 1919 to prevent them from falling into British hands." Need to make it clear that it was the German crew on board that scuttled Moltke. Also, if the ship and its crew were interned by the British at Scapa Flow, then, arguably they had already fallen into British hands. According to the scuttling article, the British wanted the fleet destroyed anyway to avoid bolstering the fleets of other nations by any redistribution. It might be better to say the fleet was scuttled to prevent its seizure and transfer to allied navies.
• Goeben
  • Franz Ferdinand was assassinated on 28 June 1914 not "in July".
  • I think a better explanation of how the gift of the Goeben to the Ottoman Empire helped bring the empire into the war on the German side.
  • The offer to the West Germany government would have been to sell the ship back not to buy it back.
• --DavidCane (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I fixed the things you suggested, and added this footnote to clarify how exactly Goeben got the Ottomans involved in the war. Thanks for your very thorough review. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I have struck the items action. There still seem to be a couple of items to be actioned.
  • I think the fact that Goeben's shelling of Sevastopol (note spelling) led directly to the entry of the Ottoman Empire into the war should be included in the text of the article rather than in a note - arguably, it's the most important thing the ship did. A link to Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau#Ottoman engagement would be useful. --DavidCane (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I placed the note into the prose as you suggested. Parsecboy (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - I'll have an even more detailed look through in the next few hours, but it seems like anything I noticed on the initial review a few days ago has been fixed. Skinny87 (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Be sure to spell out the primary units in full on their first appearance. I caught "centimeter", but there may be others (kg?). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I spelled out the first "kilogram", "meter", "feet", and a few others. Parsecboy (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Mediterranean Division is a strange redlink, unlikely to be filled ... Mediterranean Division of What ? In the same paragraph, 28 cm is hyphenated once, not hyphenated once. Please ask Maralia to look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the redlink for now (I may at some point create an article about the squadron, but maybe not). The hyphen for "28-cm" was wrong; I've removed it. Thanks for your suggestions, sometimes it's easy to miss the little things. Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, ISO and WP both say that when the unit is abbreviated, the hyphen is not used to join it to the value as a double adjective. Tony (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Provisional support

• "Royal Navy" sounds distincltly not American. Why "caliber" and "centimeter"? And "armor"?
• I'm seeing more of this type of thing: between 1973–1976. See WP:MOSHYPHEN ... "between 1973 and 1976". It recurs in a poor context at the end: "broken up between 1973–1976—the last remaining ship"; here, "and" will fix it, as required in any context. (Exception: your "to 1909–10" is fine, since the range is a kind of blob, a building year; do you agree?)
• One or two single-digit numbers that MoS says should probably be spelled out. (e.g., 3, 6) ... it's no bid deal, though, since there are lots of numerals in the vicinity. Tony (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• This class of ships has no particularly strong ties to the UK (it's not a British ship, after all—my view is that ENGVAR applies to things that are distinctly British or American, like Westminster Abbey or the Gettysburg Address; things that are only obliquely related can go either way. The equivalent would be requiring Montojo's flagship at Manila Bay to be written in AE because it fought American ships, which is a bit of a stretch in my opinion). That and I'm an American, and I started this article, so I wrote it in the variation that's more familiar to me (it was a bit of a headache when I wrote SMS Von der Tann in BE, because I had to constantly weed through things I had written in AE)
• I fixed the ndash in the last section, I didn't see any others that needed fixing (yeah, the 1908-09/1909-1910 seem to be correct to me)
• I seem to remember learning in a grade school English class that if there was more than one number if a sentence, you'd use numerals. I could be remembering that incorrectly though. Thanks for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• MOS says that adjacent quantities should be in different formats to ease readability. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, looks good. A couple comments/requests:
  • "This was 7.5 degrees less than in the preceding Von der Tann" Avoid the ambiguous "this" in reference to something prior. This what?
  • "there was some consideration given to" This seems like a laborious way of saying simply "<subject> considered".

--Laser brain (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.