Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Braunschweig/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2018 [1].

SMS Braunschweig

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is another German battleship article - this one passed a Milhist A-class review in December after having been significantly expanded and overhauled. The ship served in two German navies over the span of some 21 years, including during World War I, where there was relatively little opportunity for action, owing to the relatively cautious strategies adopted by the Russian and German fleets. Braunschweig was one of a handful of battleships that Germany was permitted to retain under the Versailles Treaty, but the vessel remained in active service for just another 8 years, being decommissioned in early 1926. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

All sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability and are formatted consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]
  • Wonder how this has been open this long with so few comments. Anyway, I'll review soon, hope we can keep it form being archived. FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much appreciated!
  • Could we get some dates in the image captions?
    • I've added dates for the images with them, but the other two are either unknown, or the year provided is likely wrong (speaking of the Bundesarchiv image here - the years they provide are usually for when the ship entered service, not when the photo was actually taken, I've found).
  • Citation for the first footnote?
  • You could state in the article body that it was the namesake of the class of the same name, and how many other ships of that class that were made (as you now only do in the intro).
    • Good idea - for some reason, this has never occurred to me.
  • "to retain six battleships of the "Deutschland or Lothringen types."" You never state that this ship belongs to either type?
Nice, perhaps add a source for this footnote? FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's not really a source for the fact that it was a mistake - sort of a WP:BLUE situation, I'd think. Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel

[edit]
  • I've cleaned up the infobox for you; feel free to revert if my changes are unwanted.
    • All looks fine to me
  • Cylindrical and Scotch marine boilers are two terms for the same type of boiler.
    • Fixed
  • hyphenate twin gun turret
    • Done
  • specify the type of machinery when you refer to machinery spaces.
    • Done
  • A Coruña, Spain Comma after Spain
    • Done
  • Might mention that she was often a flagship in the lede
    • Good idea
  • Link (main) battery, Atlantic
    • The first is already linked, but I've added the second
  • Reserve Division of the Baltic Sea Baltic Sea Squadron, Fleet, what?
    • That's what its name was - der Reservedivision der Ostsee - it was an independent unit, not part of a squadron.
  • returned to Bornholm that day I presume that you mean that they resumed training off Bornholm?
    • Yeah, clarified
  • sixteen more but only lightly damaged missing comma
    • Fixed
  • older battleships Might be useful to clarify that these were predreadnoughts
    • Done
  • Probably useful to clarify that Libau is in Latvia
    • Good idea
  • Fix the problem with Jordan in the refs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I've added this to the urgents list but I'm afraid it may have to be archived soon if some more interest isn't forthcoming. @Sturmvogel 66: Have you concluded your review? --Laser brain (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comment – Just one comment from me: if note c is supported by the same reference as the one citing that sentence as a whole, it wouldn't be the worst idea to reuse it for the note, which doesn't currently have a reference. Other than that nit-pick, I didn't have any complaints when I read through the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not supported by that citation, but the point that Braunschweig was the lead ship of the class (and implicitly, that Lothringen wasn't, and that the language in the treaty was a mistake of sorts) is covered earlier in the article (specifically, the second line in the "Construction to 1914" section). Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support – The explanation for my one comment strikes me as adequate, and the writing, referencing, and other aspects of the article seemed up to the standards. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - really nice article, seems to meet the standards. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:17, 12 May 2018 (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_Braunschweig/archive1&oldid=841084563"