Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913)/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 Ucucha 14:29, 10 September 2011 [1].

SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913)[edit]

SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of my battleships, this article has passed a GA review and a joint MILHIST/SHIPS A-class review. It is also part of what is currently going to be the largest Good Topic on Wikipedia (and what will hopefully be upgraded to a Featured Topic). I feel the article is close to FA standards, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring this article demonstrates our best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Campbell shortened citations need to be disambiguated
  • This gives publisher for Staff as "Osprey Publishing", while you use "Osprey Books" - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Review - Everything checks out. I'm not sure if I like the 'click for larger view' things or not, although that might just be because I've never seen them before. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure how, but I completely botched this media review the first time around.
      • The source for File:Jutland1916.jpg is a dead link. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • File:Internment at Scapa Flow.svg needs to be pulled from commons and moved to local Wikipedia until 1 January 2014, because the image that the SVG is based off of has those terms. The original file's copyright information also needs to be mentioned at the SVG's page. Derivatives/conversions don't erase copyright.
        • I've restored the original en image. There's a reason Jappalang uploaded it on en in the first place... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The term "recognition drawing" (in the header image's caption and its description page) is a discourse specific term (i.e. it is common within the community of ship enthusiasts but not known outside that community). Please find a replacement for "recognition drawing" at at least one of those two locations.
        • I disagree. A literal reading of "Recognition drawing" leads to "a drawing to aid in recognizing the ship", at least to me, and there's no other way to call it. Unless you want him to explain that in-text? (cf [2], although it has since been removed) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to double back like this. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries Sven, image copyright is a tricky thing. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but these (to me, who has done this for about a year now, in various places) were easy catches. I do media reviews the same way every time, there's no way I should have missed any of these, let alone all of them, the first time around. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Everybody slips up sometimes - I've been writing articles on ships for over four years, and I have yet to produce one that needs no corrections even for silly typos. Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment oppose the click thru for a larger image the scarpa flow one doesnt work, but both fail to comply with image licensing as they dont attribute the source or provide the licensing information. Gnangarra 10:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they don't. That clicker just bypassed the image description page and goes straight to the full size page. The image description page is still accessable through the normal way, (see this for example). Sven Manguard Wha? 22:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bypassing the image credits violates WP:CREDITS. Gnangarra 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You may be right, but it's fine for this image, as it's in the public domain. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • change to oppose, its not ok to ignore licensing and to bypass attribution and source information under such circumstances I cannot recommend this as being our best work, such practice is the worse case example of dealing with licensing. Gnangarra 07:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not bypassing the licensing, you can get to it via the typical method (i.e., clicking on the image). There is simply an additional link to the full size image. Parsecboy (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • The link carries no licensing information, no source information and that fails our licensing policies. Gnangarra 12:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't know what interpretation of WP:CREDITS you have, but I can see no prohibition on secondary direct links to the full size image. As far as I can tell, there is no basis for your objection. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • WP:CREDITS provides for the use of the image without credit and licensing information with the image as required by GFDL and CC licenses because for a viewer to see the image the attribution and source information is provided on the image description page. With these links they bypassing the image description page as such they no longer comply with the requirements of GFDL and CC which For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Gnangarra 03:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You can see the image in the article without attribution. You can still see the image description page by clicking the image. I don't see how adding a second link to the full size image causes a problem. If in some way I prevented readers from being able to click on the image, then yes, there would be a circumvention of the attribution policy. But I haven't done that. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the closing delegate The oppose (above) by Gnangarra should be disregarded. It is based a misunderstanding of our licensing requirements and/or a misunderstanding of our image retrial system. While the direct link to the larger view isn't standard, it's not outside of any Wikipedia policies, period. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Its not a misunderstanding the direct link fails to provide licensing information, that is a clear breach of our licensing requirements and Commons reuse requirements. Gnangarra 00:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Gnangarra on this, though for a slightly different reason. Having a direct link to the full resolution of the image to avoid the Commons version (which in turn is clearly marked with a link for 'full resolution') is awkward and not suitable for a FA. Highlighting this link also implies that none of the other images in the article are available at a higher resolution, which isn't correct. It's also unclear to me why it's even worth highlighting the availability of the full resolution version of this map given that Grosser Kurfürst isn't specifically shown anywhere on it (she's part of the red lines, which are clearly visible at the resolution in the article). Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fair - I'll remove it. Parsecboy (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • As the link has been removed and the isues below addressed I have no further objections Gnangarra 02:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gnangarra

  • In the opening sentence of the Battle of Jutland section the linking of Jutland in the prose ...resulted in the Battle of Jutland which took place is disconcerting, I recognise what your trying to achieve but think that the link in the title of the battle is poor. suggest that maybe you could give an indication of where the battle took place ie northwest of Jutland and then link that usage which is the place. Gnangarra
  • In the start of the service history section you refer to the ship and its sisters ships of the same class as dreadnaughts yet in the subsection you refer to her as a Battleship without explanation, be consistant. noting that the lead says she's a battleship, see WP:JARGON Gnangarra
    • I linked it. Sometimes we include explanation of the origin of the term. IMO it gets a little tedious to include it every time, but I wouldn't mind. I don't know Parsec's position. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being tedious to include something in every article is a poor response surely, each article stands on its own merits of being comprehensive when one compares to other articles of a similar(near identical) subjects then these types of ommissions and inconsistancies are glaringly obvious we cant assume that reader will find the articles in a set order Gnangarra 07:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't mean it's tedious for the writer, I meant that any reader will find it tedious if we spell out a lot of things they already understand, so we're required to make some guesses about what they're likely to know if they're interested in an article about a WWI German battleship ... and then we build in safeguards in case we make the wrong guesses. We missed the fact that dreadnought wasn't linked; thanks for pointing it out. - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • fourth para of Battle of Jutland The remaining four hits came from the 15-inch guns of Barham or Valiant.[32] One of the 15-inch shells destroyed the No. 2 port-side 15 cm gun,... all previous gun description have both in and mm measurements this sentence doesnt. The following paragraphs have the same issue Gnangarra
    • When the measurement serves as the name for something, Milhist FAC articles don't keep repeating the conversions. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • hmm but the prose looks inconsistant and incomplete thats why I raised it, especially where UOM swap from inch to mm in the same Gnangarra 07:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • My policy is to use the units of the owning nation. So 15-inch shells for British ship and 28-cm shells for German ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from MOSNUM, specifically WP:MOSCONVERSIONS:

  • Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided, except:
    • When inserting a conversion would make a common or linked expression awkward (The four-minute mile).
    • When units are part of the subject of a topic—nautical miles in articles about the history of nautical law, SI units in scientific articles, yards in articles about American football—it can be excessive to provide conversions every time a unit occurs. It could be best to note that this topic will use the units (possibly giving the conversion factor to another familiar unit in a parenthetical note or a footnote), and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs. - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the fate section a main link to Scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow might be appropriate, Gnangarra
  • comparing the fate section of this to SMS Kronprinz (1914) this one doesnt read a well, but it also asks a question of the Kronprinz article in that it refers to her two sister ships not being raised but which two or the fact that there is a third Gnangarra 11:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a main link in the scuttling section as you suggested and clarified the Kronprinz article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk)

  • One change since the A-class review: wasn't "Großer Kurfürst" also one of the Kaiser's honorifics or nicknames? Understood that the original "Großer Kurfürst" lived in the 17th century. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, another change: a second footnote was added in the first two sentences. IMO, footnotes that are really noticeable ("[Note 2]" as opposed to, for instance "(II)") have their uses, but you don't want too many of them in the lead, clicking on them can interrupt the flow. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments [by Sturmvogel 66]

  • There's no supporting info for shafts, range, and armor data in the infobox. Either add cites or expand, my preference, your descriptive paragraphs.
    • Why is the displacement in metric tons in the main body, but in long tons in the infobox?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing links: what kind of length, beam, draft, torpedo tubes, shp, Lowestoft, Yarmouth, founder, scrapping
  • Suggest that beam referring to the torpedo tubes be replaced by broadside and linked.
  • Coal or oil-fired? What kind and how many boilers? Be sure to link boiler as well.
  • Is range in nautical or statue miles? If the former provide a link and allow the triple conversion by not specifying output. Forex {{convert|25|nmi}}
  • On a related note remove the kmh parameter from knots in the infobox to allow that template to triple convert.
  • Where is the Jade Estuary?
  • Move the link for 1 Scouting Group to the first occurrence.
  • I'd suggest adding HMS to Moorsom and Moresby
  • What kind of ships are Warrior, Malaya, and Defence?
  • How was the ship damaged in April 1918? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)
    • Should all be fixed now - Staff doesn't say on how she was damaged in April 1918, just that it happened while entering the locks. Presumably she grounded slightly or ran into the locks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support now Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No damage from ramming her sister ship? Staff probably doesn't elaborate, but if he does, I'd like to know why there was no damage at all.
    • "The ship supported a minelaying operation on 11–12 September off Texel." Would "escorted" be a better and more easily-understood word here?
      • I generally use covered rather than escorted as the latter implies close escort to my mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On 4 November, the ship's crew joined the general mutiny and hoisted the red flag of the Socialists" Were socialists leading the mutiny? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Escorted" is better. Staff doesn't go into any other details on the ramming. As for the Socialists, it would be an overstatement, I think, to state that they led the mutinies, but they were certainly involved and were the obvious group in opposition to the conservatives who wanted to continue the war. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The relationship here could be explained a bit better for the reader, I think, but it's not enough for me to not support. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)
    • Kurfürst was christened by Prince Oskar of Prussia; HR&S volume 4 page 41
    • CO KzS Ernst Goette (July 1914 to November 1917) was later promoted to admiral, noteworthy? p. 41
    • CO KzS Werner Siemens (November 1917 to November 1918) was later promoted to admiral, noteworthy? p. 41
    • The infobox states 10 x 8.8 cm (3.5 in) guns. The sections "Construction and design" only mentions six. According to HR&S she had six SK-8.8 cm and four Flak 8.8 cm
    • I think the nomenclature for British and German units is not consistent. I thought only the German units used roman numerals. Sentences like this confused me "Simultaneously, the British III and IV Light Cruiser Squadrons..." Please check
      • Added the bit on Prince Oskar and fixed the number of 8.8cm guns (should be 10 total) and the British unit names. Were either of the two commanders particularly notable? They don't have articles, as far as I can tell. Parsecboy (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2011 (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_Grosser_Kurfürst_(1913)/archive1&oldid=1086103047"