Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Friedrich Carl/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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 2 December 2022 [1].

---

SMS Friedrich Carl

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This is an article on a German armored cruiser built in the early 1900s that was mined and sunk in the early months of World War I, though most of the crew was evacuated by other ships. This article passed a MILHIST A-class review in 2019 and should be in good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • Done (though if anyone can improve them, feel free)
• File:SMS_Friedrich_Carl_-_Max_Dreblow.jpg: what country was the postcard from?
  • Given the subject and author, Germany is a reasonably safe assumption.
• File:FriedrichCarlMiniatureDM.jpg: see commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Models. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Argh, I always forget about the model thing. Removed. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Ian

Recusing coord duties to review, been a while PB, good to see you again....

• Copyedited as usual, let me know if I misinterpreted anything.
  • Everything looks fine to me.
• Structure seems logical.
• Appears comprehensive -- one query: I'm guessing we don't know from available sources exactly when the seaplanes were fitted?
  • No, unfortunately
• I'll take Nikki's image review as read.
• I might get round to a source review later, let's see how things go.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, I always appreciate your eyes. Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I take it that this is a general support? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gog, pls take as leaning support, I prefer not to commit fully this early as prose can change with more reviewers and I like to do a once-over when consensus is forming... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Support having checked the minor changes since I first reviewed and tweaked in a couple of places. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• The max speed given in the lead is higher than the infobox/text, and needs sourcing
  • Corrected
• Author formatting for Further reading should match references. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thanks Nikki! Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "and her forward conning tower was 150 mm (5.9 in) thick." Perhaps 'and on her forward conning tower ...'?
  • Works for me
• "Friedrich Carl was in need of repairs". Is it known what needed repairing?
  • No, Hildebrand et. al. don't say; it would have been most likely boiler maintenance but that's just an assumption
• "Friedrich Carl had to tow two torpedo boats along with the coastal defense ship Odin and the torpedo boat S98 to Stavanger". Is that a total of three torpedo boats.
  • No, just poorly worded - they traveled together. See how it reads now
• "KAdm". Could this be given in full and translated at first mention.
  • Good catch
• "where Friedrich Carl accidentally collided with the British pre-dreadnought battleship HMS Prince George." Was any damage done to either ship?
  • Presumably there was some minor damage, but Hildebrand et. al. don't say

Optionally you could say something like "It is not known what if any damage either ship suffered."

Seems reasonable enough - thanks Gog! Parsecboy (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• "Friedrich Carl went into drydock at the Kaiserliche Werft (Imperial Shipyard) in Kiel for repairs in preparation for the coming conflict." Again, is the nature of these known?
  • No, unfortunately - probably boiler work again if I had to guess

That trivia is all I have. Well up to your usual standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Parsecboy ? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping - I had seen your comments earlier in the week but lost track of them. Parsecboy (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I do that all the time. A minor suggestion above, but happy to support notwithstanding. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments Supprt by Pendright

Design:

• Friedrich Carl was the second ship of the Prinz Adalbert class, which were ordered under the Second Naval Law of 1900

In this context, class is a singular collective noun and "was" seems appropriate here.

Fixed

• The need to fill both roles was the result of budgetary limitations, which prevented Germany from building vessels specialized to each task.

The first clause is unclear to me?

Reworded, see if that works

It works - Pendright (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• The Prinz Adalbert design was based on the previous armored cruiser, Prinz Heinrich, but incorporated a more powerful armament and more comprehensive armor protection.

but "it" incorporated

Done

• Friedrich Carl was powered by three vertical triple expansion engines driving three screws,
• steam being provided by fourteen coal-fired water-tube boilers.

provided -> produced or generated would seem to be superior verbs

Went with generated

Construction through 1905:

• Trials were interrupted in March 1904 when Friedrich Carl was tasked with escorting Kaiser Wilhelm II aboard the Norddeutscher Lloyd steamer SS König Albert on a trip to the Mediterranean Sea.

"The" trials

Done

• The ship's sea trials were also officially ended at that point.

at this point

Done

• In November, the crew briefly staged a mutiny against Cotzhausen, citing his inept leadership, though he remained in command.

• Did the crew suffer any consequeces for this?

Not that Hildebrand report

• Konteradmiral (KAdm—Rear Admiral) Gustav Schmidt, who was the commander of reconnaissance forces of the Active Battlefleet, transferred from Prinz Heinrich, making Friedrich Carl the new flagship of the reconnaissance squadron.[8]

"was" transferred

I don't think that's right - "was" implies someone told Schmidt to move.

I stand corrected - Pendright (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

1905-1915

• During the Kiel Week sailing regatta in July 1914, Großadmiral (Grand Admiral) Alfred von Tirpitz came aboard Friedrich Carl to observe the festivities, which coincided with a visit from the British Royal Navy.

• a visit from the British Royal Navy ->

rather broad?

Specified the unit

• A transisional word or phrase would help to link these two sequential sentenes

• While Edward Goschen, the British ambassador, was visiting Tirpitz aboard the ship,...

• Reworded

World War I:

• Friedrich Carl was assigned to the attack force, and left Memel on 16 November to bombard Russian positions around Libau; at 01:46 on 17 November, while 33 nautical miles (61 km; 38 mi) west of Memel, she struck a naval mine that had been laid by Russian destroyers in October.

• and "she" left Memel...
• Rather a long sentence

• Sometimes the German tendency for long sentences gets the best of me :)

• Seven or eight men died in the sinking.[16][17][18]

Did any men die as a result of the mine strikes, or did the 7 or 8 go down with the ship. Any wounded?

• Not clear from the sources, but I'd assume from the mines themselves. And no number of wounded, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Finished - Pendright (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Pendright - I lost track of following up on your last few comments, but they should be addressed now. Parsecboy (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Supporting - Pendright (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator request

This nomination seems to be ticking along nicely, but would benefit from a review from a non-MilHist orientated editor with an eye on how comprehensible it is to a non-specialist audience. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I'll review this, but my time is a bit fragmented over the next few days so I don't know how long it will take me to complete the review. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• "of the Prinz Adalbert class, which were built" -- to my ear this should be "was built" since "class" is singular. Is this the usual usage in the sources?
  • Fixed

  @Mike Christie: For your information:

  In American Engish, a collective noun can be singular or plural.

  If the collective noun refers to the group as a unit, then it takes a singular verb. If it refers to the individuals in the group or the parts that make up the group then the verb should be plural.

  I wrestled with this during my review and concluded from the above that the plural verb seened correct.

  Pendright (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I've lived on both sides of the Atlantic and my BrEng vs. AmEng intuition is somewhat polluted as a result. If the original usage is to be found in reliable sources I'm fine with restoring it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

My comments were directed at your assertion that "class", a collective noun, is singular. A bit of research will show that a collective noun can be singular or plural.

In any event, my motovation was merely to impart information that you did not seem to be aware of-nothing more. Regards - Pendright (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• "incorporated a more powerful armament": again just checking that this is standard usage in naval warfare sources. I would have expect "incorporated more powerful armament".
  • The indefinite is redundant, good catch
• My very limited knowledge of naval history says that mutinies are severely punished. You don't mention what happened to the mutineers -- is it known?
  • Hildebrand et. al. don't mention what happened to them, unfortunately
• "she again accompanied Wilhelm II, this time aboard" -- suggest rephrasing; this makes it sound as if Friedrich Carl was on board the Hamburg.
  • Fixed
• "It is not known what if any damage either ship suffered": suggest "It is not known if either ship suffered any damage".
  • Done
• "during which she accidentally ran aground": do we need "accidentally"?
  • Not really, I suppose
• "She remained in this role only briefly": it was five months, as far as I can tell, so I'm not sure we need "briefly". From the earlier narrative it seems that changing flagships wasn't that infrequent.
  • Trimmed
• "due to an accident with Yorck": at first I thought this was an accident involving both Yorck and Friedrich Carl, but I think it just means an accident that occurred to Yorck. Perhaps "when Yorck suffered an accident"?
  • Works for me
• "and on her return to Wilhelmshavn was decommissioned on 5 March for lengthy repairs". Again this may be terminology I'm not familiar with but I thought decommissioning was permanent, not a term for whatever state a ship is in during repairs. Our article seems to support that usage.
  • Our article is biased toward current practice; at the time, it was routine for ships to be decommissioned frequently (the Germans decommissioned the bulk of their fleet every winter until the 1890s, for example).
• “The years 1910 and 1911 followed a similar training routine to that of 1909, though Schultz had been replaced by”: no contrast is being drawn here so I would suggest another connector than “though”.
  • Fixed

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I appreciate your time. Parsecboy (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Support. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• No change needed, but I was surprised that a cruiser could be a scouting ship. I thought that they were always fast and lightly armed. You mention budgetary restraints, but would not light fast ships have been much cheaper?
  • The Germans did build a handful of such ships in the 1880s and 1890s (see for instance the Meteor-class avisos) but most of them were disappointments in one way or another. There are a couple of things at play here - the simpler one is that larger vessels can handle rough seas and maintain speed better. The more complex one is that your scouts will inevitably run into your enemy's scouts, and you want yours to win that fight, so over time, you build larger and stronger scouts. This arms race ended with the British and Germans using battlecruisers for their fleet scouts by World War I.
• "en route". Should this not be italized as it is French?
  • Its origin is French, but "en route" is a pretty common loanword in English
• I would move note a as you have not mentioned SK and L/40 at that point.
  • Hmm, that must have been removed at some point inadvertently - I've added it back
• "King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy visited the ship there" Which ship?
  • Clarified
• 1905–1915. The section only goes up to 1914
  • Good catch
• "The winter of 1911–1912 was particularly severe, and so in early 1912 Friedrich Carl was used to rescue merchant ships". I would leave out the word "so" as it implies necessity.
  • Done
• No change needed, but were such frequent accidents normal?
  • Yeah, it was fairly common for ships to be involved in accidents; the Germans lost quite a few torpedo boats to collisions with larger ships. If you click around to some of the other German cruiser articles, you'll see quite a few accidental groundings, collisions, and other accidents (SMS Yorck was a particularly unlucky one). It's worth understanding the historical context when you see the criticism leveled against the US Navy over the relatively minor accidents it's had in recent years (certainly nothing compared to the Honda Point disaster!)

• And of course that was minor compared with HMS Victoria! Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes indeed - or the German equivalent, which led to similar heavy loss of life and recriminations. Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• "The ship's crew initially thought the shock of the explosion was from striking a submarine; they immediately altered course to return to Memel," The ship or the captain altered course, not the crew.
  • Fixed
• Looks fine. Just few quibbles. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Dudley! Parsecboy (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

HF

@Parsecboy: - I was giving this a pre-promotion read through and found a concern:

• The body and infobox say she was laid down in August 1900 but the lead says August 1901

I think it should be good to promote once this inconsistency is taken care of. Hog Farm _Talk 00:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, HF, 1900 must have been a typo - it's been fixed. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2022 (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. Hog Farm _Talk 01:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

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