Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Seydlitz/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 18:32, 12 May 2009 [1].

SMS Seydlitz

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I rewrote and expanded this article last month, and it has subsequently passed GA and WP:MILHIST ACR (see here and here for those reviews). I think the article is at or close to FA, so here we are. Thanks in advance for all comments and suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeLeggett comments
There's a instance of separate multiple references: Staff p21 GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, there are always little things like that one can miss :) Parsecboy (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preferences>Gadgets - add the refTools gadget. When you edit the article a little cite button appears on your toolbar, click that and use the error check feature ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • Design section comments

What's a Marine turbine or boiler? Is that a brand-name, a specific type of engine, or what? And since I don't think that it's either I'd suggest removing it entirely or putting it in lower case as it's not a proper noun. If known I'd suggest putting in the manufacturer's name for the boilers and turbines. I'd italicize the names of the weapons. It might also be worthwhile to add the Construktionsjahr to specify the exact model of gun since some guns had the same caliber and barrel length, but differed in details. You can get that info from Navweaps.com if it's not in Groener. I've reworded part of the armor paragraph to simplify the language; check to see that it works for you. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gröner's states (and I quote) "Two sets of Marine-type turbines..." and "27 Marine-type boilers..." I'm thinking that it's something of a translation issue; I've seen "Naval boilers/turbines" in reference to other ships. I wonder if it's a design from one of the Imperial Dockyards? Since it doesn't state the actual manufacturer, so I thought I'd just reproduce what the book says. Navweaps has a goodly amount of information about the main guns (here); I don't know why, but I tend to forget to look there. Thanks for your fixes to the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSupport Some redlinks in the article - will they be resolved? Isn't GMT more common than UTC in British works? What does "SM" mean in the high seas disposition depiction; where in the world was this (some people only read captions) The "Seydlitz in port" and "Seydlitz in harbor" images - which ports were these and when? "there was still significant debate " = peacock term? Are the "Navy department" and the "Kaiserliche Marine" the same thing? "Queen Mary explodes" caption - why is she exploding and where? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, most if not all of the redlinks will eventually be made blue, probably by me. The reason for using CET is that the article is about a German ship, and the article relies on to a significant degree Tarrant's Jutland: The German Perspective (I didn't really use works from the British perspective). It makes more sense to me to use what times would be in German histories for a German ship. As for the photos of Seydlitz, the images don't have any further detail (I uploaded them myself). As for the "significant debate", I don't really follow your point; I don't see anything wrong with the phrase. There was a great deal of arguing between Tirpitz and the rest of the Navy department over along which lines the ship was to have been built. No, the Kaiserliche Marine is analogous to the US Navy or Royal Navy, and the Navy department (the Reichsmarineamt) would be analogous to the United States Department of the Navy and the Admiralty, respectively. The destruction of Queen Mary is stated twice in the text, in the intro, and next to the image. Should I expand the caption to clarify? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone will read the body text - some people scan the images and captions initially, and only read further if drawn in by them. So the question for you is whether someone viewing the article cold will understand any context or be drawn in to read further having read just the captions. Regarding the note about the use of UTC: I've only ever known system administrators in the UK to use this term - people there still use GMT routinely, hence my question above (which is unrelated to the use of CET). Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one more question: Ruge calls the ship a Großer Kreuzer (large cruiser) rather than a Schlachtkreuzer (battlecruiser). Is there any significance in the difference? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look at the captions and see how they can be improved. I thought GMT=UTC, but apparently not; I'll change it to GMT since that would make more sense. As to your last question, the main reason for the difference was politics. Tirpitz kept referring to the ships as large cruisers (aka armored cruisers) in his annual budgets in an attempt to reduce opposition from the Reichstag (the thinking was that those who wanted to reduce naval spending would be less opposed to a "simple cruiser" than they would be to a full-fledged capital ship). They weren't referred to as schlachtkreuzer "officially" until after the war, I believe. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Last annoying question - have you seen the photos in the German article? The ones of battle damage and scuttling caught my eye in particular. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those are all on Commons; the problem is their licensing. They're all from the US Navy Historical Center, which is PD in the US. Obviously the US Navy didn't take the photos themselves, so they're not necessarily PD outside of the US (so they really shouldn't be on Commons unless that can be proved). I moved a few of them onto en.wiki and corrected their license tags (such as this one), and intend on doing the rest at some point. So, the short answer is: I didn't want to put them in the article while their license tags and where they're hosted are wrong. Once I get around to moving them to en.wiki, they'll go into the article (probably the Jutland battle damage ones will go into a gallery at the bottom of that section). Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: (User:Mm40) please fix these:
  • The eighth note (the last one in this section) needs a period.
  • Footnote 57 needs a space between "p." and the page number.
  • Same as above with footnote 22 (needs a space between "p." and the page number).
  • The ISBN for the first book listed under "References" (Naval Battles of the First World War) should be linked to Special:BookSources like the rest of the references.
  • At the beginning of the quote "he decided on a measure which...", should "he" be capitalized? I'm not sure about this one.
  • The OCLC for the third book listed under references (A Naval History of World War I) doesn't appear to be working.

And you think this can be a featured article? Tsk, tsk (just kidding, great article). Mm40 (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for digging through the footnotes. I've fixed everything except for the OCLC for the third book (I don't know how that works, I think User:the ed17 did those, I'll have to ask him to take a look). I think the "he" in the quote you pointed out should be capitalized, so I fixed that too. I guess if we're wrong, someone will tell us :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done; I think that I had pasted the ISBN into the OCLC slot by accident. By the way, to get the OCLC, type worldcat.org/isbn/######### into your browser, replacing the #'s with the ISBN of the book you want to find. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to concerns over images (WP:WIAFA#3) as follow:

Awaiting feedback and actions. Jappalang (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As to the first image, do model producers hold copyright to all photographs of their products? If so, then it'll have to go. I had a feeling that the second image you pointed out would be a problem, and I can't find it here, so it'll probably have to go as well. As for the last set of images, they're all here. This was briefly discussed on Commons here, although it seems it was more focused on where the images should be uploaded and under what license templates. User:the ed17 seems to know more about this particular set of images than I do, so perhaps he can lend a hand. Parsecboy (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was asked to come here. I sent an email to the NHC a little bit ago concerning this; the Historical Services Manager, Laura Waayers, said that "All images posted on the Naval History & Heritage Command's website are in the public domain." Whatever the case in other countries, I believe that they are PD in the United States. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, looking at one of the photos, I think that {{PD-US}} or something of the like would be a better tag (or at least add that PD only applies in the U.S. :)) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the model, please refer to commons:Commons:Derivative works. The design of the scale model is copyrighted by its creator. It does not have any utilitarian aspects; hence, it is considered a work of fine art. Jappalang (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the NHC photos, the main problem is the reason given for PD: "because it is Naval Historical Center photograph." is not a valid reason. Either it is PD because it was published before 1923 (hence requiring proof of the publishing, not creation), or its copyright has expired (not very likely unless the German photographer is verified to have died before 1938), or it is considered "war booty" (see Wikipedia:Public domain#German World War II images). In any case, a more detailed explanation should be given for why the photo from the NHC is considered as PD. As mentioned in the_ed17's links, this is easy for most US ship photos in the NHC, as they are likely taken by US federal employees. The foreign photos are more problematic. Jappalang (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the images you've pointed out, at least temporarily (in the case of the photos of the ship itself, the model photo can't be used, since it's derivative) until I can find something more definite. Thanks for taking the time to explain things to a copyright layman :) Parsecboy (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I've moved the two images onto en.wiki, and will request that they be deleted on Commons shortly. Yeah, now that you mention it, the waves aren't exactly the same (although the photos appear to have been taken from the same ship). Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellent article, for which I have one or two comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As with the rest of the German battlecruisers that survived the war, Seydlitz was interned in Scapa Flow in 1918, following the end of the war" - repetition of war, suggest "As with the rest of the German battlecruisers that survived the war, Seydlitz was interned in Scapa Flow in November 1918." instead.
  • "Despite the success of the previous German battlecruisers designs," - since this is the opening sentence and no earlier designs have been mentioned in the main body of the article, I would suggest linking those previous designs at this point rather than lower down in the paragraph: "Despite the success of the previous German battlecruisers designs, the Von der Tann and Moltke-class,"
  • Sometimes you use the prefix HMS and sometimes you don't (i.e. HMS Aurora) - can you be consistent please?
Thanks for your comments; I've fixed the problems you pointed out and dropped the "HMS" from the article, since it rarely uses it, and "SMS" isn't used at all. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - seems to be an excellent and thorough article on my read-through. Regarding this: "[...] a 13.5 in (34.3 cm) shell from the British battlecruiser Lion struck Seydlitz's "C" turret and nearly caused a magazine explosion that could have destroyed the ship." Poor casual readers will have no idea what turret is "C" turret. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that makes sense :) It was actually "D" turret, for the record, I must've gotten my wires crossed at some point :) It not reads "rearmost" instead of the letter code. Thanks for pointing that out :) Parsecboy (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2009 (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_Seydlitz/archive1&oldid=1260901172"