Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Helgoland/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 SandyGeorgia 20:05, 4 June 2010 [1].

SMS Helgoland

edit

SMS Helgoland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helgoland was a German battleship built before World War I, the ship saw extensive service throughout the war and played a central role in the Wilhelmshaven mutiny. This article is comprehensive; it includes information from a widely known (at least in the field) diary of a sailor from the ship as well as the recently published book (Feb. 2010) by Gary Staff. The article was thoroughly copyedited by Dank during the A-class review in March of this year. I look forward to any and all comments aimed at improving the article and helping me to ensure it meets the criteria for a featured article. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the country of origin of the File:SMS_Helgoland_bridge.PNG ? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • More than likely German, hence why it's uploaded here on en.wiki and not Commons, because it cannot be verified to be PD in Germany. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a better source than "Behind the German Veil, Dodd, Mead & Co., New York, 1917"? Fasach Nua (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the problem with this source is; it establishes that it's PD in the United States, which is all we need. I have not come across the image anywhere else. Parsecboy (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wp has a clear m:mission, the FAC requires appropriate licensing of media, the description implies it was first published in the US, yet the licensing does not, and I would like this contradiction removed. 21:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the 1923 cut-off. The 1923 cut-off doesn't require a document to be published first in the United States before anywhere else in the world, just that it be published at some point before 1923 in the US. This image demonstrably meets that requirement. Parsecboy (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the image was deemed fine by Jappalang when the class article went to FAC back in July 2009. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The licensing and sourcing are correct. Pre-1.1.1923 publication applies to both works first published in the US and abroad (see here). I don't see anything contradictory in the description or license. Эlcobbola talk 19:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no external links. Ucucha 16:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From other A-class reviews, we know that not everyone is on board (aboard?) with "(SMS is the German equivalent of the British HMS.)" That was my addition; I didn't think we should expect the general reader to know what SMS means, but there were no objections to the way it was done in SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand: "SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand (German: "His Majesty's ship Archduke Franz Ferdinand") was ...". We don't have to translate the ship name here, but most readers won't know the reference (and may stumble on the alternative spelling of the archipelago), so we could take the opportunity to link it, if this is agreeable to everyone: "SMS Helgoland (German: "His Majesty's ship Helgoland"), the lead ship ...". - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 17 January, Ingenohl ordered Helgoland to go back to the docks for more maintenance. It wasn't until 20 January that the ship successfully entered the drydock, owing to difficulties ...": I'm not making the edit because it's just a personal preference, but I recommend something tighter, maybe "... for more maintenance, but she didn't enter the drydock until three days later ...". - Dank (push to talk) 04:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did they arrive in Kiel on 1 Mar? - Dank (push to talk) 04:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure. Herr Stumpf is pretty sketchy on dates; a lot of the time he'll just say a day of the week for something. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph that begins "At 20:15" needs some attention to the units. In particular, I just don't see "in" as a unit very often because it looks like, well, "in"; please use "inch" unless it's the second unit in a conversion. - Dank (push to talk) 04:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'm too involved to support here, but I gave it another run-through and I'm happy. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per usual disclaimer; I prefer not to wear so many hats (it gives me a big head!), but the reviews aren't exactly piling in. Authoritatively referenced, doesn't seem to me to omit anything, an interesting narrative, and adequately copyedited (grin). - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding File:War Ensign of Germany 1903-1918.svg: I very much doubt R-41 was alive in 1903 and designing flags for Wilhelm II. As the creator of a mere derivative, R-41 is not the rights holder and cannot, therefore, release it into the public domain. That's not to say this isn't public domain, only that the license information needs to be corrected accordingly (e.g. {{PD-Flag-Germany}} - not a redlink on the Commons). Эlcobbola talk 19:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, I've been through about a dozen German warship FACs that all used that image over the past year and a half or so, and that has never been caught. That deserves a barnstar or something. I've replaced the license tag on the image per your suggestion. Parsecboy (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Some of the books lack publisher locations
  • I notice that a couple of quite old books (Herwig, 1980 and Schwarz, 1986) have 13-digit ISBNs. The 13-digit format was introduced in 2007 which suggests you are using more recent editions of these books. The dates should be adjusted accordingly.
  • Scheer book: "Ltd" requires a capital
  • What is the function of the (1) after the title of the Staff (2010) book?

Otherwise, all sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But... Non-sources issue. The parenthetical note (German: "His Majesty's Ship Helgoland") is extremely confusing because, I believe, the wording is English. It is the English rendering of the ship's German title and therefore should read "(English: His Majesty's Ship Helgoland)" Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll get on the locations and ISBNs tomorrow. As to the Staff book, it's the first volume of a pair. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for the ISBNs, I got the one for Schwartz from Google Books, and in Worldcat it doesn't say anything different. Herwig's book doesn't have a date of publication, it only has the years previous versions were published ("Copyright © 1980, 1987"); Worldcat says 1998?. Parsecboy (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: The Osborne book still requires publisher's location (presumably Bloomington); "Ltd" still requires a capital L. The meaning of the parenthetical (1) would be clear if you wrote (Volume 1). Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I fixed everything as you suggested; a check to Worldcat confirms Bloomington. As for the (1), I left it as that originally because that's how it is on the book cover; I didn't think we could alter the title for clarity. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Why is the main armament listed as 12-inch in the infobox when everything else is metric?
  • The diagram of the Raid is illegible, please blow it up to 300px to make it readable.
  • Define or link AP
  • Was she coal or oil-fired? A sentence about their fuel storage would answer this.
  • Why did the ships not sail from Wilhelmshaven on 24 October if the mutiny didn't start until 29 October.
  • Directly behind Thüringen? How? At sea, docked, what?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many boilers did she have?
    • I think I've got everything. The 24th was a typo, thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Comments, leaning toward support. [reply]

  • Why did the crews mutiny? I know very little about WWI, and I'd never heard of the mutiny. From reading this blurb, it sounds like the Armistice was planned, and the sailors mutineed - did they not want the war to end?
    • They wanted to survive to the end of the war; their commanders wanted to use them as cannon fodder in the hope that it would weaken England after the war. I'll add something to make this a little clearer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following day, a sailors' council took control of the base. That same day," - Just a bit confused, was "that same day" the 5th or 6th?

Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • My bad, fixed. Thanks; none of us is as smart as all of us. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're tripping over each other ;) I added a line to clarify why the sailors revolted, which was namely that they thought the operation would sabotage the peace process. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, guys, for being so responsive! Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 3 June 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/SMS_Helgoland/archive1&oldid=366097718"