Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Rheinland/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 01:38, 22 January 2011 [1].

SMS Rheinland

Featured article candidates/SMS Rheinland/archive1

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Rheinland was the third German dreadnought-type battleship built for the Imperial Navy. This article went through GA and Milhist A-class reviews in June–August, and in that time also became part of a five-article Good Topic (which will become a Featured Topic if this article passes FAC). I feel the article is at or close to FA standards, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring the article exceeds the FA criteria. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --Pres N 06:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Not much to check in regard to the sources. They're all published books. and there are no links to spot-check. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is File:War_Ensign_of_Germany_1903-1918.svg and why does it say Germany beside it? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the German naval ensign used while the ship was commisioned, many nations use a different design of national flag at sea to identify their vessels than the flag they use on land. Not all nations do this, but Germany, France, the UK and many nations do.XavierGreen (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So why is the caption Germany and not German Imperial Navy? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because the state the ship belonged to was Germany.XavierGreen (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Subnational flags should have appropriate captions per MOS Fasach Nua (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Caption added as in SMS Kronprinz (1914). Thanks, Fasach. Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources comment: Publisher location needed for Hough, Richard (2003). Otherwise all sources and citations look good. Brianboulton (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added, thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything on her April to August 1910 service? Seems a tad disjointed with nothing between the commissioning and August.
  - That was entirely sea trials in the Baltic - I made that clear now. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did Zähringen participate in the maneuvers? When was she decommissioned?
  - At the same time as the crew transfer - I would presume that the ship was present during maneuvers, but I can't say for certain. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What function did the summer cruises serve/what did they do?
  - Mainly R&R. It was an opportunity for the Kaiser to "get away from it all" and relax with his toys. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The first such operation was conducted primarily by the battlecruisers" -- you say this, then talk about the 20-strong battleship fleet. May want to clarify that the battlecruisers bombarded while the fleet was present for support.
  - Is that more clear now? Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The crew became unruly due to poor quality food in July and August of that year." -- did anything become of this? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing specifically for Rheinland - the crews on some of the III Squadron battleships - SMS Friedrich der Grosse for instance - had some minor mutinies which resulted in a handful of executions and many more imprisonments (see the second paragraph here). Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may want to include a sentence on the minor mutinies, even if they didn't occur on Rheinland, and explain what the purpose of the summer cruises were . Otherwise this looks great, so I'm supporting. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for nowSupport. Sorry but I just have to be true to myself. I understand that it is difficult to find information on the crew but at FAC level I just expect some info about its commanding officers. I will see if I can get access to Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe. Biographien - ein Spiegel der Marinegeschichte von 1815 bis zur Gegenwart. (10 Bände) ISBN 3836497433 or Linienschiffe: Von der Nassau- zur König-Klasse ISBN 3763759948. There are many German publications available which you could consult as well.
- I ordered these books. Let's see what they reveal. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for ordering those books, but we've been through this before. You can't expect a level of information that just isn't there. Trust me on this; I've written literally 80+ articles on warships, including German, American, British, Austro-Hungarian, and Japanese vessels from the 1880s to the 1940s, 21 of which are FAs. This type of information is lacking across the board. As I've said before, the only times even the ship's commanding officer is mentioned is if he went on to do something famous or was wounded in battle (and in the case of the latter, you're not going to get a first name most of the time, just a rank and last name). Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, this is a democratic process is it not? If I find this to be an omission I believe that I am entitled to express my opinion here, independently of what you feel is right or wrong, possible or impossible. If the general consensus is that my concern is irrelevant than the article will be promoted irrespectively of what I think. If however my research renders more citable information than surely the article will improve. And as I said above, I oppose for now, which does not mean that I cannot be convinced otherwise, but I want to have a look at these books first. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, no, Wikipedia is not a democracy. My point is you can't omit information that wasn't recorded. You are certainly welcome to check those books, but I strongly suspect you're going to find more of the same technical- and service history-focused information, especially from the second book (based on other things I've seen from Koop and Schmolke). Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Voting on this issue is not what I had in mind. What I expect to achieve is Wikipedia:Consensus on this FAC nomination. I am just not absolutely convinced yet that all possible sources, books and publications have been fully explored yet. There is a series of books available in German labeled "Der Krieg zur See 1914 - 1918" and many more, that reference the commanding officers. You can also find an article on the German WP about Albert Hopman, author of many important books explaining political and military structure of the Kaiserreich and later Vizeadmiral, who was a commander of Rheinland. Please convince me that this is not noteworthy. Please don't think that I want to block this article from achieving FAC, the contrary is the case. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you have any identifying information for that book, like the authors or an ISBN (if it has one)? I looked in google books and found several with that title by a number of different authors, though nothing came up in Worldcat. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The first books arrived (Hildebrand, Röhr, Steinmetz — Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe) Besides that all the commanding officers (see German WP it matches the book 1:1 Volume 7 page 71) are listed. Two people are also associated with SMS Rheinland. The ship was named by Elisabeth of Wied and the commissioning speech was held by Clemens Freiherr von Schorlemer-Lieser. I have to compare the article with what else is written in the books. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I added a section on the commanding officers, is there anything else to be added on them? I'll need page numbers to add Elisabeth and von Schorlemer-Lieser. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Unless the commanders are themselves notable, like Hopman appears to be, I'd oppose adding them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I am ready to approve if the sips christening by Elisabeth of Wied and that the speech was held by Clemens Freiherr von Schorlemer-Lieser gets added to the article. (source is Hildebrand, Röhr, Steinmetz — Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe Volume 7, page 72. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Added. Do you have anything on the content of Schorlemer-Lieser's speech? Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope, sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes: I think splitting the footnotes in two columns make them difficult to read
- This is standard practice. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 1: needs a citation
- Done. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 4: Use the following format to include the citation in the footnote {{#tag:ref| text <ref>citation</ref>|group=Note}}
- Done. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise a very sound article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:
- Hore (Citation # 38) is listed in the Citations, but doesn't seem to be in the References. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed, thanks for finding that. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "During the operation, Rheinland's high-pressure cylinder of the starboard engine failed." Maybe reword to: "During the operation, the high-pressure cylinder of Rheinland's starboard engine failed.";
- "Rheinland opened fire at another destroyer". Maybe: "Rheinland opened fire on another destroyer";
- there is some redundancy here: "Rheinland opened fire at another destroyer, possibly Ardent, but she had to cease fire when a German cruiser came too close to the line of fire", (repeated use of the word "fire"). Maybe: "Rheinland opened fire on another destroyer, possibly Ardent, but she had to cease when a German cruiser came too close to the line of fire". AustralianRupert (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in Footnote 1: "which means that the gun is 45 times long as its diameter". Maybe: "which means that the gun is 45 times as long as its diameter". AustralianRupert (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - All fixed per your suggestions, thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - All my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"ran aground shortly after arriving in the area": ran aground in heavy fog on an island off the coast of Finland. (Judgment call; I like to give a little more detail whenever there were casualties, but I can't really point to anything that supports my position. Feel free to revert as always.) - Dank (push to talk)
"standard load": you know the drill. - Dank (push to talk)
"either ends of the torpedo bulkhead": both ends of the torpedo bulkheads. (I'm assuming there were torpedo bulkheads on both sides.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per standard disclaimer. Not much to fix; I made the changes. - Dank (push to talk) 04:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a well polished and informative article. I found a typo or two and rearranged a sentence that seemed clumsy. Do as you wish with that. You might consider one minor point. The article refers somewhere to UTC, which is an atomic clock term that postdates WWI. It might be better to use GMT, which is effectively the same thing, but which was the term that was known at that time. Rumiton (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Might also be worth considering the verb "warrant" or perhaps "justify", rather than "merit" (repairs). Rumiton (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Substituted "justify" for "merit" and GMT for UTC. Your changes look fine to me. Thanks for those. Parsecboy (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: WP:NBSP work needed throughout, and why are Portals always in the wrong place on ship articles? Portals belong in See also, if there is none, the first appendix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on portal placement in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 22 January 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.