Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deutschland-class battleship/archive1

Deutschland-class battleship

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This article covers the last class of German pre-dreadnought battleships, which were built in the early 1900s. Interestingly, most of them were completed after the revolutionary HMS Dreadnought (1906) rendered their design obsolescent, but three of them outlasted Dreadnought by more than a couple of decades. I initially wrote this article a little over a decade ago, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review at that time. I've since thoroughly rewritten it with new sources, and it went through a peer review last month that helped to iron things out. Thanks to everyone who takes the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Have added alt text
 * File:Niemiecki_pancernik_szkolny_"Schlesien"_podczas_ostrzału_Helu_(2-64).jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The source lists the author as "Zell"; I can't find out whether that's a last name or a company. I wonder if might have some familiarity with who or what that might be. If not, I'll have to replace it (with this Bundesarchiv image, which should not be a proble). Thanks as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't help with Zell, very generic, but the next line mentions German WWII newspaper published in Poland . This means that Template:PD-Poland may be applicable - granted, Poland was occupied at that time, but Poland obviously did not accept the fact (that's an interesting issue when it comes to copyright). Further, based on some discussions in Commons I remember, since the file was officially uploaded here under PD by the Polish National Archive, similar discussions when it comes to Bundesarchive generally ended with saying that "even if some facts are not clear/dubious, Bundesarchive has made the legal declaration this is PD so that's their responsibility, not our problem". So I think the picture is fine, as we have both the Polish-PD plus the backing of the official Polish institution. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
I have returned... Will get started on this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC) More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC) That's all I could find, nitpicks really. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * one thing in the lead, decap Invasion in the final para
 * Done
 * suggest "marking a significant increase in firepower"
 * Works for me
 * you could put "oa" in the infobox to specify which length is being shown
 * Done
 * "Deutschland had had a larger forward conning tower"?
 * Fixed
 * "equipped with three-shaft triple-expansion steam engines that each drove a screw propeller" is confusing. Would "each equipped with a three-shaft triple-expansion steam engine; each shaft drove a single screw propeller." work?
 * I think just removing the "-shaft" bit might solve the problem?
 * there is some repetition regarding the boilers
 * Replaced one of them
 * instead of the minimum, you could put the speed range in the infobox
 * Works for me
 * "carried a n 147.5 kg"
 * Good catch
 * you could add the barbette armor to the infobox
 * Done
 * "four of her 8.8 cm guns were replaced with four 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns"
 * Fixed
 * "like her sisters'"
 * Good catch
 * "for four 8.8 anti-aircraft guns" rm excess space
 * Fixed
 * "the new armored ship Deutschland" armored ship? Wasn't she a heavy cruiser?
 * Yes, though the Germans initially classified them as "panzerschiffe" - but I suppose we should use the classification that we use in their article for consistency
 * fn 23 should be pp.
 * Fixed
 * author-link Friedman
 * Done
 * Koop & Schmolke doesn't have any unique detail?
 * I assume that it does, but it's not readily available so I haven't been able to consult it.
 * Thanks PM, and welcome back! Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All good, and thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note
Well over three weeks in and this has only attracted one general support and an image review. Unless there is clear evidence of a consensus to promote beginning to form over the next couple of days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , this could do with a prose review by a non-milhist editor to wrap it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can scare up. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lots of support but unless I missed something (or someone), nothing outside the MilHist fraternity yet... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing as of yet, unfortunately - I did a couple of other FAC reviews the other day with the hope of securing a reciprocal review, but so far no luck. I'll do a couple more and see if I can find anyone with the time to look at this one. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

HF
Will take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It's rare for me to review and not have significant comments, but I'm supporting on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliability. Hog Farm Talk 21:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we know why the machine cannons were removed?
 * Unusually, I can add a reason! Not usually the case in things like this.
 * Thanks very much, Hog Farm. Parsecboy (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dumelow
Looking good to me. Only a few minor comments, some may be my personal preference and can be ignored, as you please - Dumelow (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "After the battle, the four surviving ships were removed from front-line service and used for coastal defense through mid-1917. Hannover alone remained on patrol duty, while the rest were used as barracks or training ships." Is there an "afterwards" missing here? The main text indicates the barracks and training duties were post August 1917
 * That could probably use clarification - I added a "thereafter" to clarify we're talking after mid-1917
 * " Hannover had a pair of above-water 50 cm (20 in) torpedo tubes and four of her 8.8 cm guns were replaced with 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns, and a tubular mast like her sisters' was installed." Missing "installed" or similar after "torpedo tubes"?
 * Good catch
 * "During the operation, the ships operated under the command of Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral) Franz Mauve." "operation ... operated" is a bit repetitive, is there another wording that could be used?
 * Swapped the second bit for "were commanded by"
 * "Being significantly slower than the rest of the German line of battle, the ships of II Squadron saw no action during the first stages of the battle.", likewise, maybe "during the first stages of the engagement"?
 * Done
 * "Toward the end of the fleet battle on the evening of 31 May, the five Deutschland-class ships came to the aid of the mauled battlecruisers of I Scouting Group, when Mauve places his ships between them and their counterparts in the British Battle Cruiser Fleet." Should be "placed", I think?
 * Fixed - a typo no doubt
 * "Hannover was modernized in the late 1920s", modernized again? We've already said that "All three ships were heavily modernized in the early 1920s"
 * Yes, twice - have added an "again" to make that clear
 * "During this period, Germany came under the control of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, which set upon a rearmament and an aggressive foreign policy that led to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939." Something a bit off here, is it better as "a rearmament strategy and an aggressive foreign policy" or similar?
 * That works for me
 * " After the end of the Polish campaign, the ships returned to training duties, and in early 1940, Schlesien was used as an icebreaker in the Baltic Sea", the commas feel a bit off, perhaps: "After the end of the Polish campaign the ships returned to training duties and, in early 1940, Schlesien was used as an icebreaker in the Baltic Sea"?
 * I think the commas are right - at the very least, the one should come before the "and", not after - I'm a little more iffy on the first one, but we might cut that knot by rewording it to "The ships returned to training duties after the Polish campaign..."
 * "Hannover was broken up starting in 1944; the work was completed by 1946." maybe "Hannover was broken up between 1944 and 1946"?
 * Done, thanks Dumelow. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on prose. No big deal on the comma point - Dumelow (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by From Hill To Shore
I have provided my initial review below. I'll come back to the service history section later. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Review complete. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Design: Do we clarify what the "fiscal year" is being referred to here either by the sources or by the German state of that time period? Fiscal years vary between countries and over time. Some follow the calendar year from January to December while some others use April to March. This could be resolved by linking to the article on fiscal years; it may encourage other editors to add a section on Germany to that article.
 * That I don't know - I haven't ever seen a specific reference to how Germany defined it at the time (though I suspect it involves the 1 April date specified in the naval law. I've added a link to fiscal year.
 * 1) Design: "The naval command had originally intended to build ten battleships of the Braunschweig type, starting with the 1901 fiscal year with two ships built per year, but ultimately they only built five. During construction, a series of minor improvements were incorporated into subsequent designs, and by the time work began on the second vessel of the 1903 fiscal year, a more significantly altered design had been prepared." That implies the second ship in 1903 was ship number 6. I am guessing number 6 is the SMS Deutschland mentioned in the next paragraph but there is a slight disconnect there. Would it be better to phrase it as the first of the 1903 would be the last of the Braunschweig type and that the second of the 1903 would follow the new Deutschland design?
 * Reworded a bit to provide clarity
 * 1) General characteristics: "The ships handled less easily than the preceding Braunschweig-class ships, though they suffered less marked weather helm." Do we have any details on how or why the ships handled less easily than the previous class? If sources are silent on this, it is fine to leave the statement as it is.
 * No, unfortunately - the ships were essentially the same size and weight, and I'd assume the hull forms were more or less identical as well.
 * 1) General characteristics: "When one of them was a squadron flagship, the crew was augmented by 13 officers and 66 enlisted men; while serving as a second command ship, 2 officers and 23 enlisted men were added to her standard crew." I am assuming that is an "or" statement; the ship was either a squadron leader or a second command ship but not both at the same time. If it is an "or" statement, would it be better to give the total numbers for a squadron leader and the total numbers for a second command ship? That way readers don't try adding the 3 sets of numbers together.
 * Yes, an "or" - see if how I reworded it is an improvement
 * Yes, that is much clearer, thanks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Machinery: "These were divided into three boiler rooms, each of which was ducted into a funnel." I would tend to say "each of which were" as we are talking about multiple boiler rooms. However, this could be one of those regional rules of English similar to the collective noun problem, so feel free to ignore if the sentence is gramatically correct in the style of English used for the article.
 * Yeah, that's a British/American thing
 * 1) Machinery: "though on trials all five ships exceeded both figures..." Out of curiosity, do we know where the trials were conducted? The choice of testing location can affect the results of the speed test, due to efficiency of the engines in different depths of water. If sources are silent on this, feel free to ignore.
 * Nothing specific to these ships, but I have seen references to other vessels built during WWI having been constrained to the western Baltic for their trials (which resulted in lower trials speeds), so I'd assume further out in the Baltic or in the North Sea
 * 1) Machinery: "Schleswig-Holstein was the fastest member of the class." Do we know if that was under trial conditions or actual service?
 * Clarified this was from the trials - I haven't seen any references to their service speeds (which of course can change at various loadings)
 * 1) Machinery: "Deutschland was designed to carry 700 t (690 long tons; 770 short tons) of coal and the other members could carry 850 t (840 long tons; 940 short tons), though additional spaces could be utilized as fuel storage, which increased fuel capacity to 1,540 to 1,750 t (1,520 to 1,720 long tons; 1,700 to 1,930 short tons)." For the figures related to the additional spaces, do the figures follow the same pattern as the first half of the sentence? As in, Deutschland had 700t normally but could increase to 1,540t, while the others had 850t normally but could increase to 1,750t? Or does the range for the additional fuel capacity apply equally to all five vessels?
 * The former is correct - have split the range for clarity
 * 1) Machinery: "Electrical power was supplied from four turbo-generators that supplied 260 kilowatts (350 hp) each at 110 volts." Is it worth linking to Turbo generator?
 * Good idea
 * 1) Armament: "The primary armament comprised four 28 cm SK L/40..." Are we missing a link here? All the other guns are linked in infobox and the first mention in the article; this one just has an infobox link.
 * It's linked in the first paragraph of the design section
 * Ah, I see. I did a word search for "SK L/40," so didn't spot the earlier link on "28 cm (11 in) gun." From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Armament: "These were placed in casemates in hull sponsons, in embrasures in the superstructure, and in open mounts." I assume this is trying to say that the guns were arranged in three different types rather than them being in hull sponsonsons with embrasures and them also having the mount open. I would suggest rephrasing the sentence, perhaps by replacing that "and" with "or."
 * Done
 * 1) Armament: "The ships were temporarily fitted with four 3.7 cm (1.5 in) machine cannon, but these were quickly removed." Do we have a time period for this temporary placement? Were they there at the time of commissioning but removed in the first year, or were they added and removed later?
 * That's all I know, unfortunately - they're mentioned in Groener and Gardiner, but Dodson doesn't discuss them at all. The ten ships built a decade earlier (the Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship and Wittelsbach-class battleshipes) carried a dozen of them, and I'd assume they were retained in the next set of ten ships due to inertia, but Germans realized quickly that guns of that caliber were useless against the latest torpedo boats and got rid of them to save weight.
 * 1) Armament: "These weapons were 5.15 m (16.9 ft) long and carried a 147.5 kg (325 lb) TNT warhead. They could be set at two speeds for different ranges." By "these weapons" I assume that we have switched from talking about the torpedo tubes to the torpedoes themselves; it wasn't until I got to the setting of speeds that I realised the subject had changed slightly. Perhaps use "These torpedoes" instead of "These weapons." You could then use "weapons" after the 26 knots statement in the next sentence, to avoid overuse of torpedoes.
 * Done
 * 1) Armor: "Deutschland had a slightly different arrangement in the belt armor and the citadel..." Is it worth linking to Armored citadel?
 * Done
 * 1) Armor: "Her sister ships' belts was increased..." Should that be "were"?
 * Good catch
 * 1) Modifications: "Schlesien had her two forward funnels merged together, while Schleswig-Holstein had hers similarly modified in 1928." Do we have an indication on the timing of Schlesien's change in funnels? The sentence implied that it came before 1928 but are we talking about a difference of weeks or years?
 * During the mid-1920s refit mentioned earlier in the paragraph
 * 1) Modifications: "Hannover had a pair of above-water 50 cm (20 in) torpedo tubes and four of her 8.8 cm guns were replaced with 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns, and a tubular mast like her sisters' was installed." I think we are missing a word after torpedo tubes there, or else there is an extraneous "were" later in the sentence. The second "and" also makes the sentence a little long; could the bit about the mast be added to the next sentence on the sponsons?
 * I think this was fixed in Dumelow's section above
 * 1) Modifications: "Schlesien received four 3.7 cm (1.5 in) L/83 anti-aircraft guns..." Do we know if this is referring to 3.7 cm SK C/30? The weapon article lists it as an L/83 and says the weapon type was used on this class of battleship.
 * Yes, those are the same
 * 1) Modifications: "In August, Schlesien had her 3.7 cm guns taken off and Schleswig-Holstein was almost completely disarmed, retaining only her 28 cm guns. The following year, she received four 8.8 cm guns, four 3.7 cm guns, and three 2 cm guns." In the second sentence, which vessel is "she"?
 * Schlesien - good catch
 * 1) World War I: "when Mauve places his ships between them and their counterparts..." I think that should be placed.
 * Dumelow also got that one
 * 1) Inter-war years: "which set upon a rearmament and an aggressive foreign policy..." This doesn't read quite right; I'd suggest either removing the "a" before rearmament or adding extra words. For example, "a process of rearmament."
 * Also fixed per Dumelow - see how it reads now
 * I'm happy with the revised wording. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) World War II: "Schleswig-Holstein steamed to Danzig, Poland..." This is technically incorrect, as Danzig was not part of Poland at the time. It was the Free City of Danzig. I'd suggest removing Poland from the sentence and using the Free City link; that way the correct context can be read in the linked article.
 * Good point
 * 1) World War II: "culminating in the Polish surrender on 7 September..." I assume this means the surrender of local Polish forces as Poland was still fighting a month after that and never formally surrendered to Germany. It might be worthwhile clarify which forces surrendered here.
 * Good point, clarified
 * 1) World War II: "Hannover was broken up starting in 1944; the work was completed by 1946." It isn't vitally important but do we know where the ship was being broken up? Readers may be curious whether it was dismantled in the eastern or western occupation zones (the zones predating the formation of the east and west German states in 1949). If sources are silent, feel free to ignore.
 * Added. Thanks very much! Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added a few replies above. I'm happy to support this promotion to FA. Good work. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review

 * Who wrote the German chapter in Conway's?
 * Updated the refs
 * The sources are known to me as highly RS.
 * Sources and citations are properly formatted.
 * The isbn for Campbell is for the 1998 Lyons Press reprint
 * Fixed - must have been looking at the original publication info
 * ISBN spotchecks for other sources all OK.
 * Prose spotchecks not made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What about the 1860-1905 volume?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, forgot about that one. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Support from 100cellsman
Nice article. I did not find any problems. 웃 O O  01:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Z1720
Please consider me a non-expert.

That's it for my first round of comments. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "they had become an obsolescent" -> "they became an obsolete"?
 * Obsolescent and obsolete aren't exactly interchangeable, and the former is better in this case
 * "when they were used for training including overseas cruises." -> "when they were used for training, which included overseas cruises." (I also assume that this does not refer to a cruise ship.)
 * Done, and yes, that's correct
 * The infobox and first picture are creating MOS:SANDWICH, which is not recommended.
 * It's fine on my laptop (and even less of an issue on mobile devices, which is what most readers use these days) - I don't think it's possible to create an image layout that satisfies all display sizes and resolutions, and I'm not particularly a fan of having all images on one side (which can cause its own problems on certain monitors).
 * "The naval command had originally intended to build ten battleships" delete originally, as it is redundant
 * Done
 * " but ultimately they only built five." Either delete "they" or flip "they" and "ultimately".
 * Done
 * "which mixed set of fire-tube and water-tube boilers," which mixed sets? which mixed a set? Wording seems weird.
 * Good catch
 * " all the major navies pointed to battleships armed" -> "all the major navies favoured battleships armed"
 * Check that again - the "pointed" refers back to the trend, not the navies
 * "all-big-gun batteries; indeed, work" -> "all-big-gun batteries, and work"?
 * I don't think "and" is quite right here
 * " Tirpitz had insisted on building" Delete had
 * Done
 * "Deutschlands in large part due to the fact that they" -> "Deutschlands because they"
 * Done
 * "As a result, they were rendered" -> "As a result, the Deutschland-class battleships were rendered"
 * Done
 * " though they suffered less marked weather helm." -> though they suffered a less marked weather helm? What does a marked weather helm mean?
 * There's a link to weather helm - I think an explanation of the term here is a bit beyond the scope of the article
 * "and six fire-tube boilers but the rest of the vessels received twelve water-tube models, all of which were coal-fired." -> "and six fire-tube boilers, but the rest of the vessels received twelve water-tube models which were all coal-fired."
 * Done
 * "while Schleswig-Holstein only lost three of hers." delete only
 * Done
 * "Both ships were broken up in situ after the war." what does "in situ" mean? Either wikilink or use more common language.
 * Linked
 * Why are the four books listed in "Further reading" not used as sources in the article?
 * Conway's doesn't add anything beyond what's already in the article, but it's a fairly well-known source for ships of the era, which some readers may be able to access. Koop & Schmolke is more or less impossible to find in the US. Weir is more focused on the context surrounding the construction of these ships (and the rest of the Imperial fleet) that is a bit beyond the scope of this article, but someone who's interested in the topic would probably want to read it. Dodson & Cant, like Conway's, doesn't have anything to add to this article, but it's a new publication still in print, and readers may find it useful as well.
 * Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed, so I'll support. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)