Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS König/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 05:54, 13 August 2010 [1].

SMS König

edit

SMS König (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

König was a German battleship built just before World War I; the ship led the German line at the Battle of Jutland in 1916, the largest single fleet action in history. I wrote this article about a year ago, when it passed GA and Milhist/Ships A-class review. I have substantially updated it with information from the recently published book by Gary Staff (June 2010), and it as since been copy-edited by Dank. I feel the article is close to FA standards; I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the criteria. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to examine this article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I think when the German battle-line turned around in the battle of Jutland, that put König in the back rather than the front of the line; for instance, you say in SMS Westfalen: "Westfalen led the German line for much of the evening and into the following day". Would it make sense to change the lead to say that she was in the front of the line for the first part of the battle? - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Must be a case of momentary blindness; you say right there "on 31 May"! - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, back in a few hours the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 03:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: All sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Slava was scuttled not sunk.
  • Define a 16-point turn.
    • I did for the first instance, the 2-point turn at the start of the Jutland section. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of tons in the last para of the Jutland section? Need conversion as well.
    • I'm not sure, Tarrant doesn't say, but I'd assume metric tons. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need a bit more background on the fleet advance of 18-20 August 1916.
  • König did not hit Slava 7 times. See the Slava article for actual damage inflicted and the appropriate cites.
    • I see 7 hits in the Slava article; "three shells from her third salvo", then "Two more shells struck her at 10:24," then "At 10:39 two more shells hit her." 3+2+2=7. However, Michael B. Bennet's Operation Albion, on page 214 says only 6 hits on Slava. Gary Staff's Battle for the Baltic Islands 1917 gives the exact same description as the Slava article; 3 hits from the 3rd salvo, a pair of hits at 10:24, and two more at 10:39. (pages 113-114). Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • <blush> Quite right, it's been a while since I've read through my own article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are Woi and Werder?
    • Werder appears to be east of Moon Sound. The map at the bottom of this page has a map with Woi and Werder highlighted, though this doesn't correspond exactly with Google Earth imagery. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are the German names for places - Werder is on the mainland, the Estonian name is Virtsu (and Barret calls it Verder). Woi is on Moon island (Estonian: Muhu) somewhere, I can't find the Estonian name. Kirk (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was König towed into Kuiwast roadstead?
    • I'd assume to put her in a safer position with regards to the British submarines that frequented the Baltic and any Russian mines that might drift, but Staff doesn't say. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you looked at the Barret book on Albion mentioned in my Slava FAC? Much of it is readable through Google Books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually have Barret's book, but it doesn't mention this ship any more than what I've already got in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dagö island needs a link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is linked, in the second para. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Man, I seem to have been half-stepping on my first read-through.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both maps a bit too small to be even partly legible. You might consider blowing them up to 500px or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen a much better version of that map somewhere, but in any case other FA articles about ships scuttled at Scapa Flow don't have that map (SMS Seydlitz, SMS Moltke, etc.), they used a picture of the ships sailing into internment instead. Kirk (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I hadn't seen this comment until now. I haven't seen any other maps other than the one this one was based on - as for a photo of the ship steaming to Scapa Flow, I haven't come across any that are definitively usable here on Wikipedia. If I do find one, I'll be sure to upload it. Parsecboy (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • I really like the way the second-to-last sentence of the lead reads, but the last sentence, 'Unlike most of the other scuttled ships, König was never raised for scrapping; the wreck remains on the bottom of the bay.', could you add currently the wreck remains on the bottom of the bay' or 'the wreck remains on the bottom of the bay to this day.? AirplaneProRadioChecklist 21:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is "the wreck is still sitting on the bottom of the bay" okay? - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer and per my comments in the edit history and at Talk:SMS_König. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I like the fact that this article is mainly about the vessel's career, rather than the technical aspects of the design, which are handled in the class article. As the present "Construction" section refers to both design and construction, it would be better to entitle it as such, viz. "Design and construction". On fact that is not explicitly mentioned in either article (the ship or the class) is that König was the first German dreadnought to have all main armament on the centerline, which may be worth mentioning (and is the reason for the improved fields of fire). Kablammo (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both good points, I've incorporated both suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've never seen the ß with a note in an article before - was there a particular reason for this? I think you should consider just going with '...sister ships Großer Kurfürst, Markgraf...' Kirk (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at WT:SHIPS#German orthography reform of 1996, and there's a link there to more discussion at WT:TITLE, our policy page. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support enjoyable read. A few quibbles. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Battle of Jutland - map doesn't have a caption.
    • Caption added, what do you think of it? Parsecboy (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rights to future salvage operations on the wreck were sold to Britain in 1962" how much

I don't see an image review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it work for you to post if I post a note at WT:MILHIST saying that you're looking for an image review and another independent review? Understood that MILHIST isn't a neutral forum, but it does seem to produce reviewers more than willing to speak their minds :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Comments - no caption for the lead image?[reply]
  • "The Germans were surprised to discover that the 30.5 cm guns of the Russian battleships out-ranged their own 30.5 cm guns."
    • That's interesting. I'm assuming that the Russian pre-dreadnoughts had been regunned with higher-caliber weapons or could elevate higher? Might be worth including that.
      • I added a note stating that the Russian guns could elevate to 30 degrees, much more than the German guns. Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The maps are extremely large, yet it's still hard to tell what is being said. I'd either make them a tad bigger, or reduce them to a somewhat normal size and append "(click for larger image)" to the caption.
    • I tried your second suggestion; how does that look? Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have anything more. Excellent article as usual.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Why does World War I need to be linked twice in the first paragraph of the lead?
  • Operations in the North Sea: "On the return voyage, Konig was slightly damaged after grounding the in Kaiser Wilhelm Canal during a snow storm." There's either a word missing or one too many.
  • High Seas Fleet was linked in the last section, so I don't believe it needs another one here. It would be worthwhile to quickly inspect the remainder of the article for such excessive linking.
    • Fixed, thanks for spotting it. There's a difference between "excessive linking" and the random output of the collaborative environment; Nate and I both tend to keep track of what we've linked but some get added later and some slip away. I'll look through again quickly. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Okay, I hope everything is linked only once now, and I'll go through new SHIPS FACs from now on looking for double links. Does anyone know a script that will point out second and third links for the same term in the same article? It would really help. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "en route" italicized? Is that common with military-related articles?
    • I mentioned this at the A-class review. Unfortunately and maddeningly, most American dictionaries don't say whether words and phrases should be italicized or not. I prefer not to italicize and I've made the change. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Battle of Jutland: "By this time, the German battlecruisers were steaming south in order to draw the British ships towards the main body of the High Seas Fleet." The struck part is a little prose redundancy that is often unneeded and just takes up space. There are other examples in this section.
    • This is one where I disagree with some long-time FAC reviewers; I see no support in U.S. style guides or U.S. publishing in general for excising "in order" from the language for the sake of tightness, and I'd rather leave it in. I'll go through this section again and see if there's something I can tighten up for you. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Done with that subsection, please let me know if tightness could be improved. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • On second thought, I removed a few instances of "in order to"; hopefully this will work as a compromise between people who wanted to keep all of them and people who wanted to get rid of all of them. I have to admit that I've always scratched my head over this "in order to" objection; it must be that "in order to" is redundant with "to" in Commonwealth countries, otherwise the issue wouldn't be coming up so much. In some contexts they mean the same thing to me; in other contexts, "in order to" means "with the purpose of" (but not necessarily resulting in), and "to" implies "with the effect of". - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's precisely the differing shades of meaning I had in mind when using the phrase, but I'm fine with the alterations. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that we have an article for Paul Behncke, the rear admiral. Would this be a useful addition somewhere where he is mentioned? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—looks excellent to me on a quick run-through. Tony (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC) PS Pet Gripe: "In order to". Dan says: "In some contexts ["to" and "IOT"] mean the same thing to me; in other contexts, "in order to" means "with the purpose of" (but not necessarily resulting in), and "to" implies "with the effect of"." I though the "to" in this context always expressed purpose. Isn't effect so entangled with purpose that it's not an issue? Either way, I would only use the three-word catastrophe on the rare occasions when it's ambiguous without. Can you provide an example of this distinction? Tony (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right that people often use it in an unthinking way and that it's a good phrase to target; more often than not, it can be tossed to improve tightness. But I'm just a copyeditor, I'm going to have to defer to the greats on the best use of the phrase: wikiquote:Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, wikiquote:Abraham Lincoln, as well as every pretty much every noted American writer. The New Yorker Magazine has an outstanding copyediting team, and I get 34K hits on the phrase in their archives. Scientific American is maybe less persuasive but I'll include it because it's representative of good copyediting of different material: 7800 hits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very sad situation: even Jane Austen. But I must nevertheless rest simply on the prima facie case. :-) Tony (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without arguing the merits, since I'm not a language maven, I'm constrained by my copyediting role at the A-class review for SHIPS. Someone spends a month or two writing the "perfect" article, gets rave reviews at GAN, submits it for A-class, and in the morning their perfect prose has been shredded (from their point of view) and their sources have been trashed by one of our many experts. If I start insisting that they can't use language that's good enough anywhere else, then they're going to start acting up and reverting me, and I just don't have the frakkin' time. We've got so many great writers and historians at WP:SHIPS and so many A-class articles already that we could produce a galaxy full of FA-stars ... which I assume is a good thing ... if we work together and don't lose each other's trust. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "good enough anywhere else". It's a clear redundancy, and something of a mental blockage among native speakers. Why use one word when eight will do, I say. Unless it disambiguates, which is rare, it gums up the wording. It's in the same category as "outside of"—much used, but needs to be corrected by professionals. Tony (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thorough, well-written article. One comment directly below. Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • König participated in a fleet advance into the North Sea which ended without combat from 29 until 31 May. König was then briefly assigned to picket duty in the German defensive belt. The ship again ran aground on 6 July, though damage was minimal. König supported a minelaying operation on 11–12 September off Texel. Another fleet advance followed on 23–24 October; after returning, König went into drydock for maintenance, rejoining the fleet by 4 November.[4] König was then sent back to the Baltic for more training on 5–20 December. On the return voyage, König was slightly damaged after grounding in the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal during a snow storm.[7] König was in the Baltic on 17 January 1916 for further training, then on 24 January returned to the North Sea. Two fleet advances followed on 5–6 March and 21–22 April. - you use the name König six times in that paragraph. Many or all of those should probably be "she". Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, that's a good point. I cut 3 "Konig"s but thought a few instances of the ship name helped with variety, as far as not overusing "she" and "the ship" goes. Is that better now? Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that works. Note, there are a number of other paragraphs that could be improved this way, in the "Service" and "Operations in the North Sea" sections, for example. In each of these sections "König" is repeated at least four times in a number of relatively short paragraphs. Mixing it up with "the ship" and "she" would make for an easier read. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Should be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's definitely easier to read. I would recommend you make one more sweep through the article, looking for any other "Konig"-heavy paragraphs. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the inconsistent use of uppercase on proper nouns, and some WP:NBSP work is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both should be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Capitalization: I believe it's "Imperial German Navy", "High Seas Fleet", but "German navy". - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 13 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SMS_König/archive1&oldid=1089083617"