Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Baden (1915)/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 13:47, 5 October 2010.

SMS Baden (1915)

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Germany's last battleship of World War I, Baden was also the only capital ship not successfully sunk in Scapa Flow after the end of the war. This article passed a GA review in May and a joint WP:SHIPS/MILHIST A-class review in July. It is also a part of a Good Topic; with a successful FAC here it will become a Featured Topic. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the standards for FA. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 12:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Images are good, now. I corrected the licensing on File:SMS Baden towed from Scapa.jpg to stop it being moved to Commons, based on what I found about the book after some Googling. J Milburn (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Bennett in the refs but not in the citations, should be in a further reading section.
 * He's sourced in footnote #4. Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You list the The New York Times Current History book as by an author "New York Times Co." in citation 15, but it's not listed that way in the refs, fix please?
 * I'm not quite sure what you're looking for - does what I added fix the problem? Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weir in the refs but not in the citations, see above.
 * Same as Bennett - he's sourced in fn #2. Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments
 * Schwartz and Goodall need place of publication, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Added. Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment
 * The article states at the end: The most important result of the trials on Baden was the British navy's adoption of "all or nothing" armor, which was employed on the subsequent Nelson-class battleships. During the trials, the 7-inch (18 cm) thick medium armor was found to be completely useless against large-caliber shells., source is Schleihauf. Is there any other source confirming this? Dr. Loosmark  07:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why that would be necessary, as Warship is a highly respected naval journal, but yes: In reference to the Baden tests, "the performance of the new APC shells was such that it was clear that all attention should be given to the thickest possible armor over the vitals with the rest of the ship unprotected&mdash;the so-called "all or nothing" system...", from D. K. Brown's Nelson to Vanguard, p. 19. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Support assuming satisfactory source and media reviews. As a "non-ship" editor, I find this a well-written and engaging article. I list some minor points below. PL290 (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "ordered his ships to be scuttled." - not quite WP:easter egg, but including "ordered" would be more natural. (Or, nearer the article title, "the scuttling of the fleet" if the concern is that it becomes adjacent to another wikilink).
 * That's what I was concerned about, I replaced it with your second suggestion. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Baden was ordered under the provisional name Ersatz Wörth in 1912,[1] under the fourth and final Naval Law, which was passed that year.[2][Note 1]" - is it necessary for citation [1] to be mid-sentence? It makes [Note 1] appear to relate to the law passed that year, when in fact it relates to an earlier mid-sentence point (the choice of name, Ersatz Wörth). Citations either all at sentence end or all precisely located would be clearer.
 * Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "After fitting out, sea trials were conducted" - seems strange to me; perhaps "after she was fitted out"?
 * Fitting out is a pretty standard term. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I see from that article that it's hyphenated as a compound noun. PL290 (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Baden's two sisterships, Sachsen and Württemberg, both lay incomplete at the end of World War I and were subsequently scrapped. As such, Baden was the last battleship built for the Imperial Navy." - "As such" to me implies "scrapped"; this seems a colloquial usage. Perhaps "scrapped, making Baden the last ..."
 * Fixed as you suggest. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Baden was 179.4 m (588 ft 7 in) long at the waterline, and an even 180 m (590 ft 7 in) long overall." - "an even" doesn't seem to add anything, by the time we've negotiated the (uneven) conversions.
 * Removed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging by date formats, the article appears to be written in British English; in that case, "caliber", "maneuvers", "armor" are inappropriate.
 * The article is written in American English, though the dmy format was chosen because A: that's what's used in Europe as a whole and B: because it just makes more sense to me than mdy. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "The second series of tests was scheduled for 16 August 1921. The monitor HMS Erebus was tasked with firing a mix of shell types into Baden with her 15 in guns. In this instance, the shells did not perform as well against Baden's heavy armor" - "In this instance" seems abstract, and odd; perhaps "This time"?
 * Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "one of the AP shells failed to explode and two semi-AP shells appear to have broken up on impact." - "appear to have" seems to tbe the wrong voice; perhaps "appeared to break up on impact"?
 * I used present tense because we don't know what exactly those shells did, not how it appeared to observers at the time. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Six aerial bombs were also detonated on the ship, though they had been placed on board and detonated remotely." - slightly cumbersome; perhaps simplify, or use "were detonated remotely" for congruity
 * "were" added. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "The most important result of the trials on Baden was the British navy's adoption of "all or nothing" armor, which was employed on the subsequent Nelson-class battleships. During the trials, the 7-inch (18 cm) thick medium armor was found to be completely useless against large-caliber shells." - the second sentence is unnecessarily disconnected from the first, when it turns out to give the reason for the first. Consider recasting along the lines of, "The most important finding ..., which led to the British Navy's adoption ... "
 * How does it look now? Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As we are talking about one particular finding, it needs to singular if that term is used. PL290 (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article, and I appreciate your comments. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Question: This [all-or nothing armour] system was used on Britain's first completed class of battleships, the Nelson class.  First postwar class? First Treaty battleships? Something is missing here. Kablammo (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that, I've fixed it. Parsecboy (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Well-written and seems to be comprehensive. Some thoughts and suggestions:
 * The intro goes into the detailed dimensions, which already in the infobox and also appear in next section. Those details are not likely to be important to most users.  Instead, why not state in the intro that the ship (and sister) was the largest German battleship of the Great War, and the first to have 15" guns?  What I am suggesting here is that it is more important to mention that the ship was the largest, last, and most powerful ship of Imperial Germany, than giving her detailed dimensions.
 * Occasionally I make the argument to keep numerical details out of the lead, and even to move them from the text into infoboxes, but I don't push it. - Dank (push to talk)
 * The lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points"-- WP:LEDE. I think the lead here needs to "draw the reader" in by stating why this ship is interesting or notable; we have the dimensions (in more detail than is needed here), but don't know that the ship or her guns were the largest.  Kablammo (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all points, her guns and displacement were larger than any other German battleship in WWI. Thoughts, PSB? - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at what I added and see if that works. Parsecboy (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * replacing Friedrich der Grosse in the post. "in the post" is unneeded.
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk)
 * under construction number 913. Not sure about the preposition here; perhaps "as hull number 913"-- is "construction number" the best term?  I see the German article has "Bau-Nr. 913" and I suppose "construction number" is as good a translation as any.  Kablammo (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Gröner calls it a construction number, so that's what I went with. I don't know that hull number would be entirely correct. Parsecboy (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A fault not really related to this article, but we lack a good article on interdiction, as in the High Seas Fleet began interdicting British convoys to Norway. Wikipedia's articles on interdiction and (redundantly) interdiction (military) do not amount to much.
 * The article is stubby but it does define the term, would you like us to link it? - Dank (push to talk)
 * A link to one or the other (why are there two?) would help readers unfamiliar with the term.
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 *  The crew effected temporary repairs-- why not "made"?
 * I'm fine with either. - Dank (push to talk)
 * In order to retain a better bargaining position for Germany-- "obtain" rather than "retain"?
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk)
 * which finally convinced Hipper and Scheer to abandon the plan-- how about "planned sortie"?
 * There was a plan, which they abandoned. "planned sortie" would also work for me. - Dank (push to talk)
 * The ship was subsequently refloated in July-- "subsequently" is unnecessary.
 * Done.
 * These comments are not an oppose, but suggestions for some minor improvements to an already-good article. Kablammo (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for handling the rest of these, Dank. Parsecboy (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Kablammo (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


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