Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Derfflinger class battlecruiser/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 SandyGeorgia 14:12, 8 September 2009.

Derfflinger class battlecruiser

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet another German warship class article, it passed GA and Milhist A-class review within the past few weeks. I feel this is close to FAC, and the extra eyes that will examine the article here will help me fine tune the last few issues that are probably hiding in the article. Thanks in advance to all editors who take the time to review this nomination. Parsecboy (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Done; thanks. Two images have good alt text (thanks), but the remaining five images lack it; please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review subpage. Eubulides (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It took a couple of days, but I've added alt text to the rest of the images. Are there any problems with any of them? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks good now, thanks. I its punctuation so that sentences are punctuated as such, and removed one small phrase that I couldn't immediately verify from the image itself. Eubulides (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Eubulides. I thought I had read somewhere that they weren't supposed to be punctuated, but then it confused me a bit, because I'd have punctuation in the middle. Thanks for clarifying that for me. Parsecboy (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Well, apart from the fact that I'm getting seriously dizzy from this barrage of high-quality German capital ship articles zooming through A/FA, I have no complaints...! Fixed an alt text parameter but apart from that, everything looks fine. Supported this at ACR and happy to do so again here. I'd say "keep up the good work", but somehow I doubt that's ever going to be an issue... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Ian's funny comment aside, this is a terrific article. I've noted my support, although I have a couple of quibbling, niggling points, which I will bring up on the talk page. Excellent work again! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Fixed a couple of minor issues, but you really ought to explain the role of the 88 mm Flak guns, AA or anti-torpedo boat guns? Or both? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sturmvogel. They were designed as anti-aircraft guns, though I suppose they could have been used against torpedo boats in a pinch. I've added "anti-aircraft" to clarify what their purpose was. Parsecboy (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, on the proviso that the section on Derfflinger's scuttling is cleared up à la Hindenburg. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 00:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I had written this article before Hindenburg, and it went through Milhist ACR before you noticed that. I've fixed it and added a note similar to that in Hindenburg. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See, I didn't even have to elaborate! :). Happy to support. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 00:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments Throughout the article I see instances where the convert template still needs to be used.
 * You have "Bennett" listed in the references but there are no footnotes that use this author.
 * I'm concerned about the number of footnotes used... seems a bit sparse. Of course if you've exhausted your sources there isn't much to add anyway.
 * Is the See also section necessary just for the link to commons? --Brad (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bennett is cited in the third note, in regards to Admiral Fremantle's claim that he informed von Reuter of the extension of the Versailles deadline. I wrote this article more along the lines of Moltke class battlecruiser than say, König class battleship, primarily because the ships had divergent careers. Because I split it up by ship as opposed to by unit, I didn't want to go into a ton of detail, hence the lack of more citations. I have merged the "see also" section into the "notes" section. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review I've checked the copyright status of the images and they all look fine. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What is a Hexanite warhead ? Pls review for undefined terms. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the link to Hexanite sufficient for that purpose? Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Parsecboy, that one's my fault. I hate IE8; it has this goofy thing where, when you do a search, it highlights the term in yellow and obliterates the link.  I didn't see the link!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries :) And as for IE8, I stopped using that a while ago. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is Battle of Jutland in upper case, while battle of battle of Dogger Bank is not, and raid on ... is not? Also, pls review WP:NBSPs.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw a ce issue, so let's get some more (hopefully non-MilHist eyes) on this nom.
 * The guns fired a 405.5-kilogram (894-pound) armor-piercing shells ...

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conversions are needed in the general characteristics section. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.