Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Thüringen/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 Ian Rose 10:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

SMS Thüringen edit

Featured article candidates/SMS Thüringen/archive1

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another one, this ship saw heavy action at Jutland and blew up HMS Black Prince at very close range in some ferocious night fighting. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article represents our best work. Thanks all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is a bit of overlinking: Kaiser Wilhelm II, destroyers, Seydlitz, Grand Fleet, pre-dreadnoughts, David Beatty, Nassau, SMS Moltke and Von der Tann
- Should be all fixed.
all toolbox checks are green (dab, external links, alt text, reflinks, redirect, earwig)
not sure why New York City, Amherst, New York and Ratingen are linked in the References section
- All fixed.
suggest you note in the lead she was a dreadnought
- Good idea.
suggest "less than three years ~~from when~~after work commenced"
- Sounds good
suggest "which were followed by I Squadron exercises"
- Sure
suggest you link "Wilhelmshaven"
- Ok
suggest you briefly note who Niemöller was for context eg "war, the future anti-Nazi Lutheran pastor...
- Sounds good to me.
suggest "Thüringen ~~was present during~~participated in"
- Works for me.
suggest " Thüringen and the rest of the fleet then remained in port until 4 August"
- Alright
suggest "ahead of ~~her~~another sister Helgoland"
- Sure
during Jutland, did she hit Warspite or Malaya at all?
- No, and I've clarified this now.
"which appeared to have been blown overboard" should this be "which appears to have been blown overboard" It currently sounds as if it was already gone.
- Fixed.
"Thüringen was surrendered to the French Navy on 29 April 1920 as "L"" not sure what "L" means.
- Just the transfer name.
could you have another look at the references? A few appear to be a bit light on in terms of title and editor names. For example, Groner appears to be the author, but there are two editors,one of whom is a contributor, and the full title appears to be German Warships, 1815-1945: Major surface vessels which is Volume 1 of the series. Another example is the title of Tarrant, the full version apparently being Jutland: The German Perspective : a New View of the Great Battle, 31 May 1916. Campbell also appears to have two authors, the other one being N.J.M. Campbell.
- John Campbell is NJM Campbell - sometimes he goes by the former, others by the latter. The rest should be fixed.

A pleasure to review. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

These two sentences might profitably be combined: The ship also saw action in the Baltic Sea against the Imperial Russian Navy. She participated in the unsuccessful first incursion into the Gulf of Riga in August 1915.
Link keel
Is length overall, between perpendiculars, waterline?
Dates like 19th are contrary to WP:DATE
Is there a link for Operation Schlußstein? I've never heard of it before.
Otherwise, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Should all be fixed. There's no article on Schlußstein - it's a fairly obscure thing. Herwig wrote an article in Slavic Review in 1973 that covers the operation if you're interested. Parsecboy (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Might be worth doing an article on if you get the time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- ("His Majesty's Ship Thuringia") – are you not italicizing the name any more (in this case, Thuringia)?
  - It was meant to link the ship's name with the name of the state in English - should I italicize it?
    - I'm not sure—do you normally italicize the translated name? I thought you did, but I could be wrong. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmm, I looked at some of the other FAs I've done, and it does seem that I italicize the translated name. See for instance SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911).
- On the approach to the English coast, Scheer turned north after receiving a false report from a zeppelin about a British unit in the area.[42] As a result, the bombardment was not carried out, and by 14:35, Scheer had been warned of the Grand Fleet's approach and so turned his forces around and retreated to German ports.[43] – ...what Grand Fleet approach? You didn't mention this in the article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's just that the Grand Fleet was at sea - do you want a bit more detail on when Jellicoe knew about the operation/left Scapa/etc.? Parsecboy (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, basically, just so that there aren't any plot holes. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright, added a line on this. Thanks again, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Good level of support but like to give it a chance to garner a non-MilHist review before promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: All sources look of appropriate high quality and reliability, and citations are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – This non-MilHist reviewer is quite happy with what he found. The article is quite clear to me, and I only found a couple of minor issues to comment on:

"The ship also saw action in the Baltic Sea against the Imperial Russian Navy, where she participated...". The "where" is referring to the sea and not the navy, so the order of this sentence is a little confusing. Perhaps switching to "saw action against the Imperial Russian Navy in the Baltic Sea, where she participated..." would be a worthwhile fix?
World War I: "The High Seas Fleet was too late, however, so it failed to locate any British forces." The "however" seems unnecessary to me, and I know others have criticized its usage in FAs. Minor point, but might be worth removing regardless. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks Giants -- I happen to agree with those suggestions so have taken the liberty of implementing them myself to expedite things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.