Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Design 1047 battlecruiser/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 19:29, 14 April 2009 [1].

Design 1047 battlecruiser edit

Nominator(s): —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A class of Dutch battlecruisers that were intended to be the backbone of the naval defense of the East Indies. The problem was that the Netherlands were invaded by Germany just as the design was finally finalized... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Read through it the other day, did not see anything that would be a problem here. Well done, ed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commments - starting right from the top
  • Infobox and Lead
    • Any idea what the ship's range would have been?
      • None, and I don't know why it isn't mentioned. Either they hadn't gotten far enough to calculate fuel efficiency, or it is an oversight; either way...
        • EDIT: the preliminary requirements for the ships included a 4500 nm endurance @ 20 knots, but I don't see this followed up upon in the subsequent designs given by Noot. the_ed17 :  Chat  15:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "had they gone into service" under "Operators" is too long, could it be replaced with "planned" or "intended"?
      • Yes. :P
    • intended class of battlecruisers built for the Netherlands, but the Second World War interrupted the plans before the ships were laid down.. in the opening sentence of the lead seems far too abrupt, could that somehow be rearranged?
      • Done.
    • After a recommendation from Dutch admirals..., which Dutch admirals, do we know?
      • No, Noot only says this: "In 1938, a committee of high-ranking naval officers was appointed to investigate various possibilities of strengthening the naval forces of the Netherlands".
Ok. Cam (Chat) 05:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, how do you know they were admirals ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used "admiral" as a general term; all flag officers are a type of admiral, I believe (i.e. rear admiral, vice admiral, etc.). I can change this if need be though. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Na, you have a point—assumptions are bad! I've reworded this. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead never actually mentions the invasion of the Netherlands. That needs to be in there somewhere.
      • What are you asking here?
  • Background
    • Other than the obvious colonial pride, could you briefly go into the justifications for the defense of the East Indies (ie the resources)?
    • You mention several times the number of forty for Japan's cruiser force. Do you know the approximate split of heavy/light for these?
      • I can go back and count the numbers in Conway's ;)
    • Other than that, good section.
  • Preliminary Design
    • The opening of the "design" seems way too choppy. Could this be remedied at all? I'll go through later and see what I can do.
    • what year was De Rutyer built?
      • Launched in '35...
    • Do we know what the reasons for The Dutch's shift to Germany were? Did France indicate a hostility to the release of the designs or anything?
      • No, the French were only given a passing mention in Noot.
    • What attracted the Dutch to the Schanhorst design as opposed to the Deutchland or Admiral Scheer designs?
      • The latter two designs would not had enough armor or hitting power for them, I think.
    • Other than that, excellent well-reffed section.
  • Design Studies
    • What is the fundamental difference between a battlecruiser and an Armoured Cruiser? (I know you and I know this, but the average reader won't, and is likely too lazy to draw up both pages and compare them).
      • I'm questioning my own writing here...I know that Noot called the alternate design one "of the armored cruiser type" on page 258, but who in their right mind would have built an armored cruiser in 1939? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, even though these vessels would be superior to any 20 cm (8 in)-gunned 10,000 ton treaty cruiser, it was felt that too much would be sacrificed if a smaller ship like this was adopted: if the armor was kept the same as the battlecruiser, no armament could be fitted. With the protection specified above, it was judged inadequate is an extraordinarily long sentence; could it be broken up into several smaller ones?
      • Done. Still need to explain armored vs. battle cruiser though.
    • and the plan was trashed.., the use of "trashed" seems way too informal.
      • Fixed.
    • nd the older ships would then take the role of gunnery training ships from grossly obsolete ships like as the protected cruiser De Gelderland. what is "like as the", shouldn't it be "such as the"?
      • Fixed.
    • The visit compelled the designers to dump the previously-required central longitudinal bulkhead. Again, "dump" is way too informal.
      • Fixed.
  • Final Design
    • No issues
  • Armament
    • Since you've listed the projectile weight, velocity of projectile, gun weight and various other factors, could you also list the rate of fire of the main-guns, as well as the secondary guns?
      • Main armament yes, secondary no. No one knows exactly which version of the 120mm gun would have been used, and the numbers for the two I give would be wrong—the 1924 gun would have been updated and the "modern gun" was put into service in 1950 after incorporating improvements learned from WWII. the_ed17 :  Chat  16:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In paragraph 1, you say seven 20mm cannons. In paragraph 3, it says eight 20mm cannons. Which one is correct?
      • Fixed.
    • The 40 mm gun was arguably the best light anti-aircraft gun of the Second World War needs a citation.
      • The ref is DiGuilian. Would you just like an extra ref added?
Sure. Cam (Chat) 05:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done now. :) the_ed17 :  Chat  15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could the last paragraph on the 20mm simply be amalgamated into the paragraph on the 40mm, since both were considered the ship's light-AA guns?
      • Done.
  • Differences from the Schanhorst class
    • as its armor could stop 8-inch shells from heavy cruisers but nothing more. Could "whereas the Schanhorst class's armour could stop x-inch shells" be added to the end?
      • If I had a statement saying that, sure...hmmm. I could compare the amount of belt armor instead... (9" vs. 13.something") the_ed17 :  Chat  15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other than that, good little comparison section.
  • Fate
    • Paragraphs 1 and 2 contradict themselves. While the one author may maintain that they could have altered the face of the war in the East Indies, the fact that four Kongo-class battleships were armed with 8x14", and would have just ripped through the three Dutch cruisers.
      • Hmm, good point. Never made this connection before. Will look at tomorrow.
      • Yeeeah, the Kongo's one-on-one would have probably had them for breakfast if the carriers hadn't gotten to them first. I removed that offending sentence. the_ed17 :  Chat  16:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't the second paragraph mention the Battle of the Java Sea, as this was an important event in the invasion of the East Indies?
      • Take a look at this too. Should I integrate a little of that back to here?
Sure. Cam (Chat) 05:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't think of a satisfactory way to add any back in without going through an entire history again, so I just added a little to a sentence mentioning the battle. the_ed17 :  Chat  16:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other
    • Could the "Notes" be split into two columns?
      • Done; although I normally hate two-column "Notes", this needed it. :-)
    • The article could benefit from a light copyedit.

Superb job on an obscure topic that would have taken significant delving and digging, I salute you! Cam (Chat) 04:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • I had to wait two weeks for Noot. :) I'll address the rest of your concerns tomorrow or Thursday (tomorrow is my busy day of the week with classes and closing at work). the_ed17 :  Chat  05:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Fair Use" claim for the lead image needs to be examined. While important to the article, it is a work of art, not a photograph of a no-longer-extant vessel. Consequently it likely is not irreplaceable; it is an artist's conception of what the vessel would look like, not a photograph. A copyright specialist should look at the fair use rationale in light of the nature of the image. Kablammo (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other points:
      • "the size of the 280 mm (11 in) guns, used because Hitler did not want to put the British on guard, rendered them inferior to of British, French and American battleships as their guns were much smaller than the 14, 15 and 16 inch (36–38–41 cm) guns of those countries." Missing a word, and clarify what "them" refers to (vessel or guns).
      • "Although they discussed the issues that had with propulsion, the Dutch came away from Italy entirely uninspired by their efforts." I suspect "they" and "them" refer to different parties; needs clarification.
      • I've noticed a few other instances of ambiguous pronouns, but I'm signing off now. Kablammo (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Never thought of it like that before (I just thought that it would be irreplaceable and therefore justified fair-use); thanks for asking about this. I don't know if it will help, but I found an extremely similar image of Scharnhorst about a week ago...see File:Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-63-12, Schlachtschiff "Scharnhorst".jpg. I think that the artist modified this pic by flipping/cropping it, removing the aircraft and second mast and adding a second funnel; note the similar angle of the guns (front two flat, back one elevated). So three questions: A) as a derivative work, would this fall into a free category? B) is the picture not valuable if it's just a modification? C) Could a detailed line drawing like the one seen here in Conway's be used as fair use (non-replaceable because the ships were never built)? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see there's a fair use claim for artwork on USS Kentucky (BB-66). At SMS Von der Tann there's an image by home-grown (Wikipedia) talent; I have seen another editor (whose name escapes me now) who has done similar drawings. That may be an avenue worth exploring. (It my be difficult to walk the line between a derivative work and original research, but as the class design was similar to Scharnhorst, using that for a starting point would be appropriate.) Kablammo (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that we should wait for Stifle's opinion, but wouldn't keeping this artwork with {{rk}} be alright? I know that Anynobody and Alexpl at Commons and Colosseum here all make beautiful drawings, but I can't imagine that a drawing of a ship would take less than two weeks, and I also think that they have long to-do lists of stuff they want to do. :-) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree we should wait for Stifle's opinion. (And Colosseum was the artist I was thinking of.) The absence of the image should not affect this FAC. I honestly don't know the answer as to whether it can be kept. I doubt it, but claim no specific expertise. Kablammo (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            Sorry folks, was on vacation.
            I don't think the image is reasonably replaceable, but it does fail another of the NFCC, #10a, as the copyright holder is not identified. Tagged accordingly. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            I have uploaded a new image over that one. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • 1 still remains. --Best, TRUCO 22:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links appear fine with the checker tool.
  • The ref Morison (1948), p. 280 is duplicated and appears more than once in the ref section, a ref name should be used instead.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of these should be addressed. Thanks, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apologies; they are gone now. Also, you may want to click your link to WP:DABS and see were it goes. :P —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow, thanks for catching that.--Best, TRUCO 22:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until fixed. Taken time off that poll to come to this oasis. I like aspects of this, but the writing needs a clean-up. Redundancy is an issue. Try these exercises.
  • End of first para, "could" is uncomfortable. What about "was intended to" or "would be able to"? Otherwise, we wonder whether it's WP's voice or a statement of the intentions back then.
  • Spot the redundant word: "After a recommendation from Dutch admirals saying that the Koninklijke Marine should be bolstered so any attacker would ..." (saying ... but you might consider also removing "should"—the sentence is precariously long, and this might help a little).
  • "but as they had never designed any sort of modern capital ship (the design of the projected battleships of 1913 having been from foreign shipbuilders), the plans did not reflect any of the advances in warship design that had come about after the First World War, and in particular the armor protection was totally outmoded." Redundancies, I'm afraid. "designed a modern capital ship" ... "reflect advances in warship design since the ...". Semicolon, not "and" ... "... War; in particular, the armor ...".
  • "Due to the chaotic situation that was Europe in the Second World War,". Sorry, this thematic equative is laboured in this context ... almost from a bad poem. "... chaotic situation in Europe during the ...".
  • Needing ... needed. Close repetition, and the second one is most unidiomatic (required/necessary).

These are a few random examples from the top. Can you find someone to go through the whole text? Tony (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Tony (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you Tony. I may hate it when my crappy prose errors get pointed out, but they are a problem. I'll go through it a bit myself, and I will try to get someone to go through this. I had Maralia (talk · contribs) in mind for a few seconds, but she's overloaded as it is and I don't want to add on more; I'll see if I can find someone else. Thanks again! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article which meets the FA criteria. The level of detail on this abortive project is remarkable and I found it to be a good read. My only suggestion is that the 'aircraft' fields in the infobox should probably be populated with whatever the final allocation of aircraft and operating facilities was planned to be. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Superb article which, imho, meets the FA criteria. Great detail, and no flaws as far as I can see. Definite support -UIS Editor Review 05:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

  • File:Hr. Ms. De Ruyter (1936).jpg: link is gone, webarchived links do not work. Please update the link. Should it not use Commons:Template:PD-NL-Gov? (removed)
  • File:Hr.Ms. De Zeven Provinciën (pantserschip).jpg: same as above. getting OTRS to confirm all images on the Navy site are public domain.
  • File:Hr. Ms. Tromp 1936.jpg: hopefully, awaiting the OTRS.
  • File:De Ruyter (C801).jpg: same as above. Date of photo? Should it not use {{PD-NetherlandsGov}}? (removed)
  • File:De Ruyter during trials.jpg: this is not likely by the Royal Netherlands Navy. Conway credits each picture, and some pictures are uncredited (whether they are PD-UK or unknown authorship escapes me, Conway has credited pictures to "MoD" and "author's collection"). Prime example, on page 8, there is a column of 3 pictures; the top two are individually credited, even though they are from the same source. The bottom image of the column is uncredited. Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC) (removed)[reply]
    • Oh, you're kidding lol...(no, I did not check the links before adding the photos). This gives a different image for the first De Ruyter (and not nearly as good of an image...) and no image for the second. This covers the second image and gives me a different image that I can use for the third. And yes, I think that they should use that template. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2nd image fixed, 3rd image replaced...I stink at trying to find copyright status though. Would it be too much if I asked for you to go hunting for five minutes for the first image? The alternative is this image, which is of much less benefit to the reader IMO becuase of how far the ship is away from the camera. Obviously if I have to I will switch it, but...yeah. Thanks, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches#Common misconceptions, is there a page on the Dutch military website that specifically states the images hosted are in public domain or free for use? I do not understand Dutch; hence I have to ask you (I presume you understand the language) to go through the Dutch site to locate the information needed to verify these images. Jappalang (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I actually don't; Google Translate is a beautiful tool. :) Thank you for the link, though...I did assume that they would be PD without actually checking. I don't see anything, but I will email them and wait for a response. With thanks, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • For the De Ruyter that was sunk in the Battle of Java Sea, how about this 1942 Australian photo? Jappalang (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think that I am going to use this one from Conway's, as it is even more clearer and the source is the Netherlands Navy (below the second pic). Thanks for the help though!
              • I just got an email back from the navy stating that "All of the pictures on www.defensie.nl ( the official website of the Dutch Ministry of Defence) may be used in the public domain, as long as the source is mentioned (bron: Ministerie van Defensie/source: Dutch Ministry of Defence)." Should I send this on to OTRS? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think it would be good for the projects if that email was passed to OTRS; it will stop further questionings on this front. Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • You might want to get started on the OTRS for the Dutch Navy site and tagged their images with {{OTRS pending}}. Jappalang (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Design 1047 battlecruiser.jpg: in response to the points brought up earlier in this FAC, no, we do not use a work of unknown origin for fair use. Do not use this image if it was not published in a reliable source. As for the line drawing in Conway's book, I think it can qualify for fair use. Images of this theoretical ship by Wikipedia users would be running into the region of WP:OR. The ship or knowledge of its exact structure is not in existence; hence, creating it from one's guesses is an original thought that is not verified by reliable sources. Basing it off someone's idea would make it a derivative work. (A similar situation would be the Byzantine dromon in Byzantine Navy.)
    • Alright. Any admin, feel free to delete it; I'll work on scanning in a line drawing from Noot...the stats from Conway's indicate that they were using one of the older designs and so their drawing may not reflect the final design which I give stats for (although I'm sure that it is close and I will use it if I can't scan!). —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: check out this search on Maritiem Digital. There are some contruction shots of the old De Ruyter, but they also have Royal Netherlands Navy photos of De Ruyter C801. There are permalinks for each image and searches (as demonstrated above). Quite a slow site for me though. Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(@during trials pic) - tagged for speedy, my apologies for how much work I am making you do...
(@ site) - DUDE. That is the gold mine I was hoping would turn up somewhere. Thanks a lot! I'll be hunting through that for images; are all of them PD becuase they have been donated to the museums? For now, I'll try to keep to the official Navy ones... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stick to the Navy ones. The private photos are copyrighted for 70 years past the author's death, and the corporate images 70 years after first legal publishing. Note that Maritiem displays images at the smallest size and you have to zoom in at higher levels for original sizes (too high a zoom and jagged edges appear). However, since they still display it through that small window (like certain online art galleries), you might have to do some patchwork to get the large size images. Jappalang (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Those windows are rather annoying; I'll see what I can do with my limited image-modifying skills. Thanks again, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would the status of works by anonymous photographers be? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For Netherlands, if the author's identity cannot be reasonably proven, the copyright of the work can be assumed to exist for 70 years past first publishing. Jappalang (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and about Maritiem's small windows? Forget about it... I just discovered that you can simply zoom in and right-click to save the zoomed image. It will be, on default, saved as a *.ashx file; just rename the file extension to *.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of adding this photo by an anonymous author; would it be in the public domain? There's a date of 1925 on it, but I don't believe that is a publishing date.
Yeah, I discovered that when I zoomed in and saved the first time. :-) Thanks again for the link! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the ship was commissioned in 1925, so a photo of it moored in Den Helder, the Dutch main naval base, in its first operational year (or before that) is not really unbelievable. For publishing, it is stated to be a postcard and these are generally printed almost immediately or a few years later (maybe a decade or so for anniversaries and special occasions); however, the museum has given a date and specifically stated postcard, so I think we can reasonably take it to be the publishing year of the image unless it can be proven otherwise. This postcard just manages to scrape in under the URAA 1996 date (an anonymous 1925 Dutch work falls into Dutch PD from 1 Jan 1996 onwards) to qualify for US PD as well). Hope the OTRS clears quickly, so we can close the image review. Jappalang (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) - alright, I added the image of Java. Would you be able to check the license I put on it? I'm pretty sure that it's right, but not 100%. Also, I swear that I am done adding images now. :-) Thank you for all of your help in sorting through these issues; to say that it has been invaluable would be an understatement. Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HNLMS Java 1925.jpg checks out fine. Now we are just waiting for the OTRS to clear. Jappalang (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got an OTRS about this (OTRS:2762019), but it didn't have the image filenames on it. I can't seem to spot which image it refers to here, though; can someone point it out? Stifle (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hr.Ms. De Zeven Provinciën (pantserschip).jpg and File:Hr. Ms. Tromp 1936.jpg. Sorry! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS permission has been added. Regarding the {attribution} templates...do I have to atttribute them in the article itself? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been talk of this in other articles, and the concensus there seem to be as long as the image page attributes the source, it is okay (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tree Sparrow, regarding File:Tree of sparrows.jpg). Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - after hacking the prose around a bit, I'm quite happy with it :-). Shimgray | talk | 12:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive and well written article. Ruslik (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It appears to me that most, if not all, of the concerns listed above have been addressed. Excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 14 April 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/Design_1047_battlecruiser/archive1&oldid=1142499655"