Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Wittelsbach/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2017 [1].

---

SMS Wittelsbach

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Another in my series of German battleships, this one was the first ship authorized under Alfred von Tirpitz's direction. Obsolete by World War I, the ship nevertheless saw use in the Baltic during the war, patrolling for Russian warships and supporting the German Army. The article passed a MILHIST A-class review about a month ago. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Germany's_fighting_machine;_her_army,_her_navy,_her_air-ships,_and_why_she_arrayed_them_against_the_allied_powers_of_Europe_(1914)_(14593450659).jpg: are any more specific copyright tags available?
• File:SMS_Wittelsbach_NH_45197.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Both fixed, thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Is there a reason why the citation at the end of the footnote is not formatted in the same way as the other citations?
  • As I recall, when I started using that note in articles, the template couldn't handle a nested {{sfn}}, so I used the harvnb template as a workaround - apparently it was fixed at some point and I didn't realize it. I'll have to go and paste that through the other articles that use that note.
    • Amusingly, in doing so, I discovered this glitch - seems the template was only partially fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• In the list of references, Vol. 5 of Die Deutsche Kriegschiffe has an isbn but Vol. 8 does not. Not speaking German, I don't know what value there is in the link you've attached to Vol. 8.
  • Yeah, Worldcat is hit or miss on the several editions of Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe - and the books themselves aren't any help either - oddly enough, they don't include the ISBN.
• The 10-digit isbn converts to 978-3-7822-0456-9
  • Fixed.

Otherwise, all sources seem sound, reliable and consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Link decommissioned in the lede and scrap in the infobox.
  • Done
• with provisions for a squadron commander's staff accommodations?
  • Yes, but also an enlarged bridge for the command staff
• struggled throughout the early- and mid-1890s to secure parliamentary approval for the first three Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleships, but in June 1897, Hollmann was replaced by Konteradmiral (KAdm—Rear Admiral) Alfred von Tirpitz, who quickly proposed and secured approval for the first Naval Law in early 1898. The law authorized the last two ships of the class, This isn't really clear. Probably need to say that Hollman was ultimately successful in getting the 3 ships approved.
  • See if how I changed it suits you.
    • That works.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Link screw, cylindrical boiler
  • Done
    • I think that Scotch marine boiler is a better link than fire-tube boiler.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Works for me.
• Infobox states 12 water-tube boilers, text says 6 cylindrical and 6 water-tube. Which is correct?
  • Fixed
• The ship _carried_ the minesweepers, or was their tender?
  • Yes, carried them - see here (and this photo of Preussen, which was similarly converted)
    • Might be worth adding that picture as I'd never heard of carrying minesweepers before. They must have been teeny, tiny little things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• That's all for this pass.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Were you planning to return to this one Sturm? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges

• Wittelsbach was 126.8 m (416 ft 0 in) long overall and had a beam of 22.8 m (74 ft 10 in) and a draft of 7.95 m (26 ft 1 in) forward." Is length between perpendiculars or length at waterline known?
  • Overall - it's in the text, but I've added a link to the infobox.
• "Unlike her sister ships, Wittelsbach was completed with provisions for a squadron commander's staff." Does this mean she had room for staff for the ship's squadron commander? Could be clarified.
  • Added a bit.

That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Iazyges. Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Looks good. I have a few minor suggestions about prose and style.

Lead

• ¶2 "During this period, she was occupied with extensive annual training, as well as making good-will visits to foreign countries." – Trim by four words? Suggestion: "During this period, she was occupied with extensive annual training and good-will visits to foreign countries."

• Works for me.

• ¶2 "The training exercises conducted during this period..." – Trim by one word by deleting "conducted"?

• Sure.

Construction to 1905

• ¶2 "Completion of the ship was delayed due to a collision with the ironclad Baden in July 1902, which accidentally rammed Wittelsbach while she was fitting out." – I think it would be slightly smoother if you moved "in July 1902" to just after "rammed Wittelsbach.

• Sounds good to me

• ¶2 "...on 23 November and a cruise into the Skagerrak..." – Link Skagerrak?

• Good catch

1905–1914

• ¶1 "The fleet then cruised through the Kattegat..." – Link Kattegat?

• Done

• ¶1 "The British fleet stopped in Danzig, Swinemünde, and Flensburg, where it was greeted..." – Link Danzig here on first use rather than later in ¶4 of the World War I section?

• Fixed

• ¶1 "...a hostile fleet attempting to force the defenses of the Elbe." – Link Elbe here on first use rather than later in ¶4 of the World War I section?

• Fixed

Battle of the Gulf of Riga

• ¶1 "After the Russian battleship Slava attacked the Germans in the strait, forcing them to withdraw." – This is not a complete sentence.

• Good catch - removed "After"

• ¶2 "Nevertheless, Prince Heinrich decided to try to force the channel a second time, but now two dreadnought battleships from the I Squadron would cover the minesweepers. Wittelsbach was instead left behind in Libau. – It might be smoother to tighten this a bit and recast slightly. Suggestion: "Prince Heinrich attempted to force the channel a second time using two dreadnought battleships from the I Squadron to cover the minesweepers and leaving Wittelsbach behind in Libau."

• That works for me

General

• Concise alt text would be nice even if not required.

• Have added alt text.

• No problems with dabs.
• No dead URLs.
• No problems with duplicate links.

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Finetooth! Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• All good. Happy to support on prose. Finetooth (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• 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. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

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