Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Markgraf/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 02:05, 3 April 2011 [1].

SMS Markgraf

Featured article candidates/SMS Markgraf/archive1

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of my German battleships, part of my nearly complete master plan. The ship saw heavy service during World War I, including the Battle of Jutland and Operation Albion. I feel the article is high quality and is at or close to FA standards. Any issues that may be found can be ironed out during the FAC. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per standard disclaimer. I copyedited this for A-class, and I've checked the edits since then. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Is there a link available to explain "recognition drawing"?
- Not that I'm aware of. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborate on source "German Warships of World War I" (File:SMS_Konig.jpg) - is this a book? If so, publisher and page(s)? If not, what is it?
- The images were more than likely published as some sort of pamphlet for ship crews. The direct source (i.e., where I scanned them from) was a reproduction of the plates by Norman Friedman. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:König_class_battleship_-_Jane's_Fighting_Ships,_1919_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_24797.png - on what page of the source text does the image appear?
- Added. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Maps showing the maneuvers ... on 31 May – 1 June 1916" - map's legend says 30-31 May
- Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Internment_at_Scapa_Flow.svg - Walk Thru History link appears to be broken
- I'll ask Jappalang. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to note, he fixed the link some time ago. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Koop is in Citations but not References
Be consistent in using New York vs New York City
Be consistent in what is wikilinked when - for example, why is London linked but not Oxford? Amherst but not Westport? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"Koop & Schmolke" in cites but not refs. – Peacock.Lane 07:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated during the A-Class review the ship was named after the house of Baden. If not added during A-Class review I would like to see it mentioned now at FAC review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this as a requirement for 1b/c - the namesake is uncommon in the major secondary sources we rely on for all ships, not just the Markgraf, and as a byproduct is uncommon in FA battleship articles. Also, I looked during the A-review and never found an English language source for that assertion for the namesake of the ship. Kirk (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a fact that is mentioned in both German sources I own. I think it is noteworthy because it is a tribute to the Empire member states, the conglomerate that constituted the German Empire of the time. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no problem with adding it - it was an oversight during the ACR. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Koop & Schmolke state that the construction speed was 21 kn. Question: does that mean true speed differed? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Groner gives the design speed as 21 knots, and the same speed on trials (FWIF, Grosser Kurfurst made 21.2 knots and Kronprinz made 21.3 knots on trials). Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The crew of 1136 men was 41 officers plus 1095 sailors. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Groner has the same figures. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't understand something about the 8.8 cm König class battleship armament in general. The König class battleship article states that initially it carried six 8.8 cm (3.45 in) SK L/45 quick-firing guns which were later removed and replaced with four 8.8 cm SK L/45 anti-aircraft guns. In the infobox (both in König class battleship as well as in the SMS Markgraf infobox) it reads: 10 × 8.8 cm (3.5 in) guns! Shouldn't it state: 4 or 6 × 8.8 cm (3.5 in) guns? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Groner seems to indicate that the ships carried the six QF and four AA guns as built, and all six QF and two of the AA guns were later removed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm, my English is worse than I thought. To my interpretation the article doesn't say this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to Koop & Schmolke page 117 the Königs Class ships carried 6 x 8.8cm L/35 - C/06 MPL which were later replaced by either 2 or 4 x 8.8cm Flak L/45 C/13 MPL. This means that Markgraf either carried 6 (in the beginning) and later either 2 or 4 8.8cm guns, but never 10. I think this needs a cross check. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just checked the Warship Profile vol. 37 on SMS Konig, and it confirms that the L/35 guns were replaced by the L/45 Flak guns - it must be a typographical error in Groner. Parsecboy (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What about the infobox? Here you still mention 10 8.8cm guns. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I forgot to change it when I fixed the prose. Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Support Note: I think you still have to make the change to the König class battleship infobox, respectively the other König class battleship aticles/infoboxes (König, Großer Kurfürst and Kronprinz) MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post review comment: Due to the use of the map an inconsistent spelling of Großer Kurfürst is introduced to the article. The map spells the ships name with ß while the article spells it as Grosser Kurfürst. Can we settle on one variant? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Second post review comment: Can we add the same (same as in SMS Friedrich der Große) translation text >>"SMS" stands for "Seiner Majestät Schiff", or "His Majesty's Ship"<< here. I think it helps to understand what SMS stands for MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this for the A-review, another excellent article in the series. Kirk (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question is "Fate" a common subheadng in naval vessel articles? I'm not sure I like it, if it isn't. It's kinda vague... GlitchCraft (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at a sampling of other ship FACs, there's a "Loss", "Final voyage and sinking", "Decommissioning and fate", and "Later career". At least for the FAs I've written, I've almost always used "Fate" as the last header (with the exception of ships sunk in combat and perhaps a few others). Parsecboy (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

Coal or oil-fired? Number and type of boilers might be useful.
- Added. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Standardize the conversion of the displacement between the infobox and the main body. I'd suggest using LT|t in the template, but that's just me.
- Fixed - should have been metric tons. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No cites for range.
- Added. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When did the AA guns replace the low-angle 88s?
- No one (Groner, Staff, Conways says when; the most specific I can find is "later removed" which is not exactly helpful. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a very simplistic description of the armor scheme, but I guess that readers can go to the class article for more detail.
I don't know that I'd call the armored cruisers of the 1st CS elderly. They were made obsolete by the introduction of the battlecruiser, but were less than a dozen years old.
- Changed to "obsolescent." Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"mine warfare ships"? Weren't most of these minesweepers?
- Halpern says "minesweeters, mine hunters, mine breakers, submarines, and mother ships." Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do tend to forget about the sperrbrechers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can a map of Operation Albion be added?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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