Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Hindenburg/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 Karanacs 21:07, 27 September 2009 [1].

SMS Hindenburg

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

The last German battlecruiser ever built, Hindenburg was only in commission for little more than a year and a half before she was interned at Scapa Flow and scuttled. This article passed GA and MILHIST A-class review over the past two months, and is part of a Good Topic. I feel the article is close to FA criteria, and the reviews that will occur here will help me iron out the last few details. I know this article may run into some opposition because it's fairly short (only 14kb, including the infobox et al.), but remember that size is not a requirement to FAC, comprehensiveness, and this article is pretty solid in that regard. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is a very good article. I reviewed it at the Good Article stage, and it has improved in the intervening weeks. There are a couple of issues that weren't worth bringing up at Good article review but should be brought up here.

First: I've been told that the nbsp syntax needs to be inserted after all "loose" numbers (numbers without something after them). If this is the case, you'll need to add it with your dates. *Second: It doesn't look like the alt text on the schematics is showing up. Is there alt text on the schematics? or is there simply not a caption of the schematics? *Third: in section advance of 23 April... you have this text: "... and made good their escape." This seems jargonish to me, or at least in the realm of colloquial wording. they escaped? or simply and escaped? In another part of the same section: "Temporary repairs were conducted that allowed the ship to steam at 4 knots, but it was decided to take the ship under tow, by the battleship Oldenburg." VERY passive. Possibly: "Although temporary repairs allowed the ship to steam at 4 knots, the Oldenburg took the ship under tow."? In the next section: " The plan consisted of two simultaneous ..." "The plan called for..." In two simultaneous attacks, the fleet would..."  ??? I wonder if "Later operations" might better be called something else. Perhaps Proposed death ride, or ...? Just idle wondering here. You realize, of course, that these are minuscule suggestions, well, perhaps the first one is part of the MOS requirements and therefore not minuscule...

  • dabs no disambiguous links using the link checker checks out.
  • external links these also check out using the link checker.

Another example of some fine work. Very nice. A pleasure to read, even for someone not particularly versed in the finer points of nautical warfare. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks, Auntieruth. I've never heard of using non-breaking spaces for dates before, so I asked here for advice. There is alt text for the schematics image, so I don't know why it isn't showing up for you. I fixed the two prose issues you pointed out in the third comment. As to the "Later operations" part, I think "Proposed death ride" is a bit dramatic :) I'd be open to other suggestions though (from anyone). Parsecboy (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ah, yes, proposed death ride is a bit dramatic, but those were dramatic times. However, Later operations is a bit mundane, so I'm thinking we might come up with something more in the central--that's me, the middle of the road, with all the road kill. As to the dates, Tony posted that it was "consider" but not "required"... I was suggesting that it only go between the loose numbers and the next word (the month, usually). Someone made me do that for Unification of Germany, which was a REAL pain (that is a long article) so now I'm doing it on everything. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT Although this is a short article, it is line with the requirements of the featured articles. It is well written, interesting, informative, and represents a neutral point of view. It covers the "state-of-knowledge" as we know it about this type of warship and this particular ship. It is part of a larger series of ship articles the editor is working on, each of which also demonstrate care to quality, prose, research, authentication, and all around good scholarship. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments

  • Construction
    • Formatting of "Drh.L C/1912" and "DrhLC/1913" is inconsistent. It's also presented as "DrhLC/1912" in Note 2.
      • Fixed.
    • Perhaps explain why the higher angle of inclination of the later turrets gave greater range.
      • I added a note explaining that angle of fire and range are directly proportional.
    • To save looking at the infobox, suggest you state how many of the SK L/45 guns she had rather than just "two more" than Derfflinger
      • Fixed.
    • Why was she slightly larger than the earlier ships and by how much?
      • I haven't seen anything about why the design was altered, but I have added the specific measurements for length and displacement.
    • Why was she faster than the earlier ships and by how much? Was the steaming speed, a sustained speed or a maximum, short sprint?
      • I added specific speeds for Hindenburg and Derfflinger - the steaming speed was a sustainable rate (remember, the ship could steam at 26.6 knots, which would be the "sprint")
  • World War I
    • There's a degree of repetition with the previous section on dates here.
      • Fixed.
    • "albeit too late to see any major action" [my emphasis]. From the following sections it does not sound as if she saw any action.
      • I meant "action" as in any activity, not just combat. Should I change that?
        • I think most readers would think "action" to be synonymous with "combat", so it might be worth modifying - perhaps to "operation"
          • Fair enough. I've substituted that for "action"
    • "were acting as distant support for German minesweepers off the German coast when they were attacked by British battlecruisers" is ambiguous. Clarify that it was the minesweepers which were attacked. Is it known which British battlecruisers were involved?
      • Repulse, Courageous, and Glorious were the BCs involved.
    • "Six days later," suggests that this sentence and the previous one are causally linked in some way although there appears to none.
      • Fixed.
    • Could link to Moltke and Seydlitz on first use.
      • Fixed.
  • Advance of 23 April 1918
    • Is this action by Hindenburg really notable at all? Apart from Moltke losing a propeller and suffering damage nothing much happened!
      • I'd say it's notable in that it was the only offensive operation in which the ship took part.
    • Do we know which British destroyers were sunk in the October action?
      • Yes, they've been added.
    • Do we know which German and British Destroyers were involved in December 1917 action?
      • Nope, Massie doesn't say.
    • "December 12" should be "12 December" for consistency.
      • Fixed.
    • Explain why the Germany navy had been waiting for this opportunity.
      • I added "numerically superior" to qualify the Grand Fleet; is that sufficient?
    • Explain dreadnought.
    • "kilometers" should be "kilometres" for consistency with metres in infobox.
      • The article uses American English, the infobox has been corrected.
    • "It was later discovered that the convoy had sailed the following day" seems awkward how about "It was later discovered that the convoy had left port a day later than expected by the German planning staff".
      • Fixed.
  • Later operations
    • Section would be more appropriately title later planned operations.
      • Fixed.
    • "On 11 August" is presumably 11 August 1918.
      • Fixed.
    • Link to Wilhelmshaven.
      • Fixed.
    • Does not mention if there was any mutiny or sabotage on Hindenburg. Did she stay in Wilhelmshaven when the fleet was dispersed or go elsewhere.
      • Herwig's book mentions disruption on all four BCs except Hindenburg, and Massie doesn't say which ships went where.
  • Fate
    • Suggest you provide a {{main article|Scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow}} link
      • Missed this one last night, but I've added it now.
    • "The massive flotilla consisted of some 370 British, American, and French warships." What about the German ones? How many of those were there?
      • Fixed.
    • Link to scuttling.
      • Fixed.
    • "maneuvers" should be "manoeuvres" for consistency with other British spellings and European setting of article.
      • See above re: "kilometers/kilometres."
    • When were the raising attempts made?
      • Groner's doesn't give dates, he just states "Several unsuccessful attempts were made to raiser her, and a successful..."
    • Link Admiral Fremantle in note 5 to Sydney Fremantle.
      • Fixed.
    • Link to German Federal Navy.
  • Footnotes
    • 13 and 16 reference the same page in Massie and should be combined.
      • Fixed.
  • General
    • Did she actually participate in any engagements?
      • The ship saw no actual combat.
    • There seems to be a shortage of technical detail in the prose. Perhaps précis some of the more important information from the Derfflinger class battlecruiser article.
      • I added a "for further information" link at the top of the section; I don't want to duplicate too much in this article, besides what set her apart from her sisterships.
    • Were any of the officers or crew notable? Do we know who the captain was?
      • Not that I know of.

--DavidCane (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support after very minor copyedits. It may look short to the casual reader, but in my opinion it is extremely long—Hindenburg only served for two years. The only possible problem I see is in the lead; do you have/need a citation for "named in honor of Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, the victor of the Battle of Tannenberg and the Battle of the Masurian Lakes, as well as Supreme Commander of the German armies from 1916."? —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't thought of that, but I'm sure there are plenty of biographies of Hindenburg around, so I can track down a citation for that. It'll have to wait until tomorrow though. Thanks for copyediting the article, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, 1a. Very nice work again by Legolas. The prose is excellent, the stories engaging and the linking skilfully handled.

  • First section opens: "Built ... Built." Maybe the second one could simply be removed? Or a replacement word such as "Designed" or "Conceived" or "Planned"?
    • Changed to "Designed."
  • "British naval intelligence believed"—were they correct or incorrect in that belief? I guess we find out later.
    • Turns out it was due to labor shortages; I've added this to the article.
  • I inserted "the standard" on a hunch; please check.
    • That's fine.
  • "On 12 December, four German destroyers ambushed a second convoy consisting of five cargo vessels and two British destroyers." Unsure, but can this be "On 12 December, four German destroyers ambushed a second British convoy of five cargo vessels and two British destroyers."? (Two changes.)
    • Substituted your version.
  • I guess "the fleet" and the "Grand Fleet" are clear in the reader's mind throughout.
  • "roadstead": I had to look it up. Consider a Wiktionary link or a wikilink if there's an article?
    • Roadstead is linked in the "Advance of 23 April 1918" section
  • Check my "strike", to avoid the close repetition of "attack".
    • Looks fine to me.
  • Should this be in US English? "harbor". Just checking.
    • I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to say a German warship has "strong national ties" to British English, on the basis that the ship fought the Royal Navy. For instance, should Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi use American spellings because it participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor or should it use British spellings because it took part in the raid into the Indian ocean in 1942, during which it sank several Commonwealth ships? That and trying to remember all the variations is a hassle I can do without :)
  • "which was the deadline"?
    • Fixed.
  • We couldn't have a larger pic of the scuttling, could we? It's widely felt that WP's thumbnail default is outrageously tiny. Please see Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Size. Tony (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm...I usually prefer to keep images at the default size. There are many editors (such as myself) who have set preference sizes, and I'd rather not force someone with a 13" monitor to see everything at 300px. The way I see it, if someone feels the image is too small, can't they just click the thumbnail to see the larger version? This isn't print, after all. Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I think you meant "Parsecboy"... Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2009 (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_Hindenburg/archive1&oldid=1138470566"