Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Lützow/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 17:50, 26 November 2009 [1].

---

SMS Lützow

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/SMS Lützow/archive1

This article passed GA in August and a MILHIST A-class review in September. It's somewhat short, but the ship was sunk after having been in commission for less than a year. I look forward to any and all suggestions from reviewers. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments No dab links, no external links (I made the "training" link an InterWiki), the four images have alt text with no obvious problems, and dates throughout the article are consistent Day Month Year. Yay. --an odd name 01:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking those. And your enthusiasm is quite refreshing :) Parsecboy (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I made a small clarification in the intro. Otherwise, I think it's a good article. Amandajm (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• The article should have a wiki commons link and a First World War portal link?
  • The only image on Commons of this ship is this one, which doesn't meet the sourcing requirements and should probably be deleted. Hence, it's not in the article.
    • No problems on the commons link. Would a link to the Portal:World War I not be approbirate on this article?
      • Ive added the portal link.
        • Thanks, I forgot to do that :)
• Nothing in the infobox appears to be sourced, am sure it is but there is n evidence; can we add a note or some inline citations?
  • Done.
    • Cheers.
• Not a major issue but do the Germans use First World War or World War One?
  • I seem to think this was discussed years ago on Talk:World War I, and I believe they use both "der Große Krieg" (the great war) and "der ersten Weltkrieg" (the first world war).
    • I would suggest to change to the latter per some twisted form of Wikipedia:ENGVAR, if there is consensus for it.
• Should we not have an English translation after Kaiserliche Marine, i made the educated guess it meant German navy but i dont believe it is a common foriegn word used in English i.e. Luftwaffe or Panzer etc
  • Note added
    • Cheers.
• "Lützow was commissioned on 8 August 1915, but did not join the I Scouting Group until 20 March due to engine damage during trials, after most of the major actions that had been conducted by the German battlecruiser force." To me this sentance reads a little awakward; is I Scouting Group the battlecruiser force?
  • Yes, the I SG was where the battlecruisers were assigned. I split the sentence and reworded the second half; does that read better now?
    • On the whole yes. Would it be incorrect to also add "battlecruiser force" infront of I Scounting Group just for confirmation?
• "During the battle, Lützow sank the British battlecruiser HMS Invincible and is sometimes given credit for the armored cruiser HMS Defence.[1]" Leads should not have references in them.
  • Leads can have references, but I can move it if you like.
    • The idea is that everything in the lead is sourced in the article, but thanks anyway :)
• The Bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft section to me doesnt seem to really focus on the ship, could we trim it slightly?
• "The operation was to be a repeat of previous German fleet actions" Is there an article covering this, if so can we link to it?
• Lützow withdraws: do we know which ships were firing on the Lützow at this point or was it the entire battleline? If we dont know dont worry :)
  • Nope, I haven't seen anything giving credit for the last few hits on the ship. I can look through Campbell again, but I don't know if I'll find anything.
    • No problems :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Other than that an excellent informative article in my opinion.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Most if not all items i have raised have been addressed, excellent article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: just a thought, should a quick line to be added to talk about the KMS Lützow (not completed iirc) or the Lützow class heavy cruisers? Although they are not related to this ship and they are all named after the Prussian guy (i would imagine) it may not be approbriate.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There was the Hipper class cruiser, and Deutschland was later renamed Lützow. I can add a line at the bottom later. Parsecboy (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, i was completly mistaken i was thinking of the Hipper class; dont know how i managed to confuse them all :S--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Support

• In the lead, it says "Lützow was sister ship to Derfflinger". Should this be "a sister ship"?
• Construction section, "Lützow was ordered as Ersatz Kaiserin Augusta". What was responsible for the name change?
• Lutzow scuttled section, "The ship was capable of 7 knots up until around 00:45 when the ship began taking on more water." Repetition of "the ship". Actually, I count "the ship" repeated seven times in the first paragraph, two times twice in one sentence. Could this be reworded a bit to make it more varied?

Overall a nice article. I look forward to supporting when these issues are rectified. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I fixed the points you raised (I added a note explaining the German ship naming stuff) and reworded the scuttling section. Is that better now? Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making those changes. I have read through the article again and nothing else jumped out at me. I believe this article meets the featured article criteria, and so I am changing my "comment" to "support". Dana boomer (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Still needs conversions for displacements, speeds, range, etc.
• Needs clarification of what caused the flooding. Was it the 8 hits from Invincible? Or, perhaps, the later hits? Inquiring minds, etc...?
• Link to an explanation of points. Non-sailors have no idea how far that is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Alright, I think I've got all the conversions, let me know if you find one I missed. I added a line to the text to clarify it was the 8 hits from Invincible that did the fatal damage. For points, I linked to the appropriate article and added a footnote explaining it. Thanks, Sturmvogel. Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - great work as usual, Parsec. My only thought is that you could use a picture of Derfflinger is place of the plans... IMO, it would look better, but it's your call :) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note, looks good enough for promotion, but I do notice a number of statements and paragraphs beginning with "At (military time), such-and-such happened", which reads a bit like WP:PROSELINE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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