Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bayern class battleship/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 23:28, 27 March 2010 [1].

Bayern class battleship edit

Bayern class battleship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

The Bayern class was Germany's last and most powerful class of World War I battleships, though only 2 of the 4 were completed. This was written over the summer and passed GAN and a joint MILHIST-SHIPS A-class review afterward. I feel the article is pretty close to FA standards, hence my nomination. I appreciate any and all comments that help me improve the article. Thanks in advance! Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. Fixed the one dab link. External links and alt text good. You have three links to redirects that point back to this article, as indicated in the dab links tool. All are in templates. Ucucha 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two more in the navbox. Ucucha 20:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean in the template at the bottom? I fixed that already, and it's not showing up for me anymore. Maybe try purging your browser. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, see it now. Sorry for missing that. Ucucha 20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, I had to purge mine to get it to show up correctly. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This is a very solid and nicely illustrated article. I've got some suggestions though:
    • Some German-language or technical terms need to be explained. For instance, Kaiserliche Marine needs to be translated the first time its mentioned and 'metacentric height' won't be familiar to most readers
    • The 'construction' section is rather brief - can anything more be said about this topic?
    • Brief coverage of the dates the two completed ships were commissioned and joined the High Seas Fleet and their working up/training exercises would be useful
    • The 'Fleet advance of 18–19 August' needs some context/background - for instance what the I Scouting Group was and who Beatty was may not be known to most readers
    • The 'Operation Albion' section refers to the 'German navy' - this should either be 'Kaiserliche Marine' or 'Navy' should be capitalised
    • What the ships were doing (or, to be more accurate, not doing) between their operations should be mentioned
    • Notes 1 and 2 need references Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a note for the metacentric height, does that explain it better?
      • I have Alex Greißmer's Die Linienschiffe der Kaiserlichen Marine 1906-1918 around here somewhere. I'll look through that and see what I can add.
      • Commissioning dates are in the construction section. I might be able to find some of the trials info—I seem to think something I was reading just the other day briefly mentioned Bayern...I'll see what I can dig up.
        • Turns out this was in Richard Stumpf's diary, and all he mentioned is that it was rumored Bayern was torpedoed during trials. I haven't seen this is a standard history, and so it probably was just a rumor.
      • Sources added to the footnotes.
      • I'll get to the rest later today. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Conversions are needed for displacement in infobox and main body and throughout the machinery paragraph.
  • Adjectival forms of units need to be used like 38-cm gun, 50-mm armor, etc.
  • Did the Bayerns participate in the 23 April 1918 sortie by the High Seas Fleet referenced in Massie, p. 748?
  • And what about any mutinies onboard in late 1918? Were there any?
    • I fixed the first two. Massie doesn't mention the two ships specifically in his account of the operation, but he does say "three dreadnought battle squadrons," which at this point would include Bayern and Baden. I added an account of the operation. I also added a bit about the mutinies, about which there isn't much for these two ships. Their crews don't seem to have been at the center; all Tarrant says about Bayern, for example, is something along the lines of "her crew's mood was reportedly 'dangerous.'" Parsecboy (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a cn where, I think, you've got a typo. The pics look good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about Fleet sortie of April rather than Fleet advance? The latter makes me think of a whole lot of sailors lined up at one of those paycheck advance places.<snicker>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought of it that way ;) I made the change you suggested. Parsecboy (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Mere moments after making a remark about a "two dolla hoe", I find an article which includes a source by Hore. Hmmm. I dare draw no conclusions. On the other hand, I'm sure you were gonna add Woodman to the refs, weren't you? I thought so. • Ling.Nut 14:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image copyright review: No issues. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for 1a. We're used to very good work by this editor. Well done.

  • Why are the images (aside from the lead image) so small? They look like dirty blobs. Please take the detail into account when choosing image sizes. I suggest at least 240px (the default for everyone is now 220px).
  • Why is "English" linked at the top? You'd think readers would know what it is if they're reading it. Indeed, why does the word even appear, when it's obvious to my dog that what lies within the parentheses is an English translation of the German.
  • I would tend to hyphenate "ship-building priorities"; no big deal if it's in AmEng (haven't got far enough to tell).
  • "to take part in the Battle of Jutland on 31 May–1 June 1916." MoS breach: the en dash needs to be spaced when either element has an internal space. "On" is normally used for a single day or date; you could either omit it or spell it out: "on 31 May and 1 June 1916". I'd rather have the en dash in the infobox: "1,187–1,271", which would match the other en dashes there.
  • Possibly "prevent", to match the grammar of "to beach" rather than "managed". Just a thought, but you know better which of the subtle shades is appropriate.
  • "28,800 tons"—should that be "t", for consistency? Otherwise, I'm confused over which kind of ton you mean.
  • Avoid at at? "were slightly longer, at 181.8 m (596 ft) m at the waterline" -> "were slightly longer: 181.8 m (596 ft) m at the waterline".
  • "6-cylinder 2-stroke"—spelled-out numbers would be normal for MoS. Same for 3-bladed.
  • Do we need "propellant" linked? Seems like a household word. It's quite unlike "casemates" and "muzzle velocity" in this respect.
  • No hyphen when a symbol (abbreviation) is used, such as "lb", "kg". And suddenly there's "meters" spelt out again. Can it be consistently abbreviated throughout after the first instance?
  • Are those minus signs? I can't see them in edit mode. Looks like an en dashe (–10, rather than −10).
  • "The 15-cm guns had 170-mm-worth of armor plating in the casemates;" no hyphens at all here. The "worth" bit is odd. Can it be more precise? Tony (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've got most everything you pointed out. As for the images, I left them at the default originally. I have my preferences set for 300px, and think that looks fine (but then my screen is 20"). Do you think that would be too big to specify? Where are the minus signs? Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment - upped hte size of the photos. Parsec, you way want to look at the repetition of "The Bayern class ships" in the Design section. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 14:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Ed. I switched out a few of these to mix up the wording. Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Seems to have everything a ship class article should have and presents all info per FA requirements. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 00:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Tweaked a little bit of wording but otherwise prose appears up to usual standards. Structure, detail, citations, and illustration all look fine. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2010 (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/Bayern_class_battleship/archive1&oldid=1138455747"