Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Westfalen/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 Karanacs 18:33, 7 September 2010 [1].

SMS Westfalen

Featured article candidates/SMS Westfalen/archive1

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC), - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Westfalen was one of Germany's first dreadnought battleships; the ship served the majority of World War I in the main battle fleet in the North Sea, though it did participate in expeditions into the Baltic. Last month (July) the article passed both a Good Article nomination and a joint WP:SHIPS/WP:MILHIST A-class review. It is also part of Nassau class battleships, a current Good Topic. I feel the article is close to FA standards, and the editors who review the article will help me ensure the article is of the highest quality. I look forward to working with those who take the time to examine this article. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
~~"Hore, p. 67" isn't in the references~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Oops. Added. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no external links. Ucucha 14:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no image issues as of this (current) version. Эlcobbola _talk 21:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- In the infobox "Boats and landing craft carried: 10" is formatted awkwardly. Not your fault of course, but perhaps move it to notes instead so it doesn't look so out of place?
- ~~"However, the Weser River was lower at this time of year" needs rephrasing~~

Not sure ... I added "before she could be moved", does that help? - Dank (push to talk) 11:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The river itself is not lower, the water level is. If you use lower you also need something to compare it with, like "lower than normal". I adjusted the sentence to "the water level in Weser River was low at this time of year". Yoenit (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~"fully laden" is this an obscure term or a typo?~~ regular term I just never heard of before it seems.
- "The first operation was conducted primarily by Rear Admiral Franz von Hipper's battlecruisers; the ships bombarded the English coastal towns of Scarborough, Hartlepool, and Whitby on 15–16 December 1914." This sentence seems to suggest Westfalen did not participate in the raid? Then why include it in the article?
  - The battleships didn't directly bombard the coast, but they sailed in support of the battlecruisers. That's where they ran into the British ships in the night. Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Adjusted the sentence to reflect this. Yoenit (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The first attempt on 8 August was unsuccessful, as it had taken too long to clear the Russian minefields to allow the minelayer Deutschland to lay a minefield of her own." Why would not having a minefield prevent the fleet from entering the Gulf?

PSB, I could be wrong but I think he's asking for this sentence to continue, "... her own, before ..." - Dank (push to talk) 11:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean here Dank. I am not trying to get the sentence to continue, I am just curious why failing to lay a German minefield would cause a German attack on a Russian area to fail. Did they perhaps fail to clear the Russian minefield in time (as the article suggests in the paragraph below)? Yoenit (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PSB? - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the battle article I understand what happened. I have changed the sentence, leaving out the part of laying own minefields as I will just get people confused (it sure happened to me). Yoenit (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~"The single hit from a destroyer had killed two men and wounded eight." This seems out of place, with not integrate it with the earlier sentence about the hit?~~ Yoenit (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. - Dank (push to talk) 11:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

support Comments have been adressed. Yoenit (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

A plan diagram would help to clarify the "unusual hexagonal configuration".

Parsecboy did it (that was fast). - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links needed for destroyer and battlecruiser.

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What damaged the ship's boilers in 1918?

All Staff says is, "During the advance she suffered boiler damage that reduced her speed to 16 knots." - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What time zone is used in the article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. Done. (Btw, the last time I reminded you about this, that was for the benefit of some future copyeditor :) - Dank (push to talk) 03:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? Payback is a ... ?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support All appears in order. I would suggest adding a picture or two the jutland section if you can find one that details where exactly Westfalen was during the battle, otherwise I think the article meets FA-class requirements. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some maps in Tarrant's book, but they are of course copyright, and any I could make myself would be derivative works. Unless someone has access to the original RN and German Navy records, I don't think a map that detailed is possible. This one from the USMA is probably the best option. Parsecboy (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

At 00:50, Westfalen spotted HMS Broke and briefly engaged her with her secondary guns; in about 45 seconds she fired thirteen 15 cm and thirteen 8.8 cm shells before turning away - what was the result of this encounter?

Overall, well-written, complete article. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added a note on Broke's fate, as it seemed to be too much detail for the paragraph. It's not clear what the results of Westfalen's firing were - Campbell doesn't say. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Steel & Hart or Bennett, but from HMS Broke (1914): "The effect was devastating so that within a couple of minutes 50 crew were killed and another 30 injured, disabling the guns and preventing any effective activity on deck. The helmsman was killed at the wheel, and as he died his body turned the wheel causing the ship to turn to port and ram Sparrowhawk." I don't know if you want any of that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short article, and Westfalen didn't engage in much combat in its career - I would include it in the article text, rather than a note. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PSB, you've got Bennett's The Battle of Jutland, how much of that does he cover? (Should be page 138.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I put it back in the text and added a bit from Bennett (though he doesn't identify any of Broke's attackers). I had forgotten that I have a weird edition of TBoJ and the page numbers are for some reason different than the other editions - the account was on pages 126-127. Parsecboy (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that, Jayjg. It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to make dumb typos like that :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment File:Nassau class main weapon.svg is completely invisible on my monitor due to the very thin line width. Hasn't anyone else had this issue? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a request here to get it better defined (I don't know anything about editing SVG images). Parsecboy (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Actually, I can do that myself, it shouldn't take more than a few seconds :|~~ Done. I was just wondering whether I was the only one who had trouble seeing it. Feel free to strike this through... sorry. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not a problem at all, and thanks for improving the image. Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 6 September 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.