Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Blücher/archive2


 * 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 02:08, 15 July 2010.

SMS Blücher

 * ''Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC), Dank (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this article about a year ago; it then passed GA and Milhist/Ships ACR in July. I nominated it for FA in December, but it failed primarily due to prose concerns. Dank has since copy-edited the article, and we feel the article is of much better quality than it was six months ago. I look forward to the constructive comments of any and all reviewers. Thanks for your time. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Parsecboy has asked me to join him on this one and I'm happy to oblige. In addition to the copyediting, I have looked through the sources available online, and I assumed I would be doing some tweaking, but Parsecboy has gotten the sense of the sources exactly right IMO. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Link for A-class review is here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing my mind about co-nomming ... the scarce resource at FAC isn't nominators, it's reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unstriking my co-nom, after asking Parsecboy of course. If anyone objects (I did support, after all), I'll re-strike.  About a month ago when this one went up, ship FACs were sailing through, and I thought that the best way to contribute was to do copyediting and reviewing but no nomming for the ship articles at A-class and FAC.  There's now a ton of work to do, in general, at A-class and FAC noms, and I'm shifting strategy to co-nomming, writing and answering questions as best I can ... hopefully starting with this one, but if not, there are always more in the pipeline. - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: sources look good. A couple of minor points
 * Publisher locations required for Scheer and Tarrant books
 * Google has scanned Scheer's whole book here, but the only publisher location given is "London Toronto New York Melbourne". The publisher is given here as "London, New York, etc.", and I used that, but feel free to change it if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Added "Annapolis" for Tarrant. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Ltd", not "ltd" is part of the company title, per here Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Images
 * No dab links or broken external ones. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All images meet free use licensing and are properly tagged and explained. However, the right-aligned pic in the service history section is pushing itself down into the succeeding section. Brad (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 17 days with no comment or resolution. Brad (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it a problem that it's pushing down? It's not creating whitespace or anything. Parsecboy (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If no one responds, it's always possible they were being polite. MOS says: "Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading)."  I'm not seeing the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer and per my comments above. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Striking here since I'm un-striking my co-nom

Support - will try to get back to this with a more detailed review in the next few days. There are a few places where I think the article assumes a bit too much knowledge from the reader, and a couple of others where it might be going into too much detail about engagements. There is perhaps not enough assessment of Bluchers success (or otherwise). A few specific observations... - these comments addressed. The Land (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did the German navy make the design decisions that it did? For instance - why 8in guns rather than 9.2in?
 * Generally the Germans mounted slightly smaller guns than the British did to allow for greater armor protection. Also, presumably because the 21cm gun was already standard on the older cruisers, which allowed avoiding multiple calibers of armament (i.e., to simplify logistics). Of course the true nature of Invincible's armament made this position untenable, but that wasn't known at the time. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What was the mission Blucher was built to fulfill? Why did she end up serving with the fleet, when the other armoured cruisers were used as commerce raiders?
 * The armored cruisers were actually built for fleet service; only SMS Scharnhorst and SMS Gneisenau were stationed overseas at the outbreak of war (SMS Fürst Bismarck (1896) had been there until 1909, when she was replaced by S&G), and they were never used as commerce raiders. The other armored cruisers were at one point or another assigned to the I Scouting Group, until they were displaced by the newer battlecruisers. They were then used in the Baltic against the Russians until British submarines and mines made that too dangerous. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we have these points included, with appropriate references, in the article? The Land (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can add this in probably tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does she count as a 'proper' battlecruiser or was she attached to that squadron out of desperation? What designation was she given in German?
 * The Germans called her a battlecruiser, but more than likely only for propaganda purposes. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean what word was used in German? The Land (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be Großes Kreuzer, but that term was applied to all of the armored cruisers going back to SMS Fürst Bismarck (1896) and the battlecruisers during the war. Schlachtkreuzer didn't come into use until after the war. IIRC this was partially a trick by Tirpitz to increase capital ship production, by referring to battlecruisers with the same terminology as the old armored cruisers. Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this kind of thing should be in the article. You're right, the German Navy Laws laid down a certain number of Grosses Kreuzer and of Linienschiff for the Navy, and so the designations remained. Doesn't mean they are any more right or wrong than the English terminology though! The Land (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Krupp armour and 4-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines probably need explanation/wikilinking
 * Linked. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope to be back fairly soon.... The Land (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's better. Would still prefer more insight into the design process, though I would hazard a guess that such detail might not be available in the published English-language sources.... The Land (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * More comments - how much did she cost and who was she named after? The Land (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If Parsecboy doesn't get to it first, I have a couple of sources arriving from Amazon this week that may tell me. On the second point, it's the first link in the article and the first thing in the infobox. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed it in the infobox just now. It should be mentioned in the prose. The cost was 28,400,000 goldmarks and that fact is in Herwig's Luxury Fleet, can't find yhe page ref right now... The Land (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was trying to be too clever here, but my copyeditor instincts are to make things as concise as possible, and use links liberally so that people who want to know what something means can click and people who don't don't have to read explanations of things they either already know or don't care about. If someone wants to know who or what Blücher was, wouldn't they click on the link?  It's hard to miss; it's the first link in the article.  Still, I put a lot of stock in following precedent, and many of these articles do specifically discuss the namesake (although many don't), so if you really think it's a good idea, I'll put it in. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you find the page ref please let us know (and thanks, that should be in there!), otherwise I'll check the books I've got coming. Everything at User:Dank/Library is either here or has been shipped. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * Link to torpedo net.
 * There's an article in Warship International that might be of some use: SMS Blucher. Paul Schmalenbach. N2/71:171. §M4/71:326; §N2/73:134; §N3/74:283.
 * OSU only has one edition from 1971 (it doesn't say which one it is) but I requested it in the hopes that it's the right one. We'll see what I might be able to add to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to note, turns out OSU has all editions from 1971 reproduced in a book, so I have the relevant article. I should be able to go through it tomorrow and add what I can. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this: The thickest portion of the belt was backed by 120 mm shields Shields? Bulkheads?
 * Good question, that doesn't make sense to me, either! The Land (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's from Groner; he gives the figures for the CWL belt as "0-80-180 (shields 120)-80 on 30mm teak." I took that to mean what I wrote, that there was an internal armor system in the central portion of the ship (not the torpedo bulkhead, which he gave as being 35mm thick). Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as unlikely. Gunshields, i.e. casemates, perhaps? The Land (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought so as well, but it's directly in the range of figures for the waterline belt. The casemates were 140mmm thick, and the gunshields for the 88mm guns were 80mm thick. Parsecboy (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe the article will clarify this, although I'm not that hopeful. Groener's mention is unlikely to be a typo, although I'm not at all sure what he's referring to. Magazine armor? Who knows.
 * Yeah, the Warship International article doesn't talk about armor at all, it's almost entirely about the operations the ship was part of. There should be some stuff that can be included, and there's a bit of development info that might be worth adding. Parsecboy (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If none of us can figure it out, then I'd just delete it outright, figuring the Groener made a mistake.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What coastal battery? During the bombardment of Hartlepool, Seydlitz was hit three times and Blücher was hit six times by the coastal battery.
 * Clarified. Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You mention in the lead that Princess Royal made the most significant hit on Blücher, but make no mention of it in the main body.
 * I'm not sure where that came from; it appears to be incorrect. According to Tarrant, it was New Zealand that did most of the firing on Blucher; Princess Royal only fired on Blucher until Beatty gave the order to distribute fire, at which point she switched to Derfflinger. Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so sure, Campbell claims two hits on Blücher by Princess Royal, including the crippling hit even though she may have fired more of Derfflinger, which PR doesn't seem to have hit at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)'
 * Hmmm, the Warship International attributes the crippling hit to New Zealand. "The most fateful hit of the day, fired by H.M.S. New Zealand, hit Bluecher at 1130 hours...steam pipes to the foremost boiler room were destroyed [and] the speed dropped to 17 knots." Parsecboy (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What time are you using? CET?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, CET. I've clarified this. Parsecboy (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Convert the metacentric height and most of the numbers in the propulsion and armor section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments Overall a nice article, but a few things that I'd like to see resolved before I give my support. Dana boomer (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead, "The ship served in the I Scouting Group for the majority of her career, including in the early portion of World War I." Why not just "including the early portion of World War I"?
 * Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Design, "The earliest armored cruiser, Fürst Bismarck, was rushed through specifically". Was rushed through what? Design? Building? Testing?
 * Clarified. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * General characteristics, first paragraph. Why are some specifications that are given in meters converted and others not?
 * Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the general characteristics section it gives the total crew complement at 853, but there were only 792 on board when she sank. Did any of the sources give a reason for this significant decrease in crew strength?
 * That appears to be an error in Tarrant. The Warship International has the specific breakdown (23 of 29 officers killed and 724 of 999 enlisted killed) and I've replaced the 792 figure with that. Warships were given additional crew members during wartime to allow for casualties, sickness, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks good, but now I think the number in the lead is wrong, as it still says that 555 were killed, while the above numbers make it almost 750. Dana boomer (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Battle of Dogger Bank, "but was limited to 23 knots". Why had Blucher slowed down?
 * The German fleet had trouble supplying its ships with high-quality coal during the war, which decreased engine performance. I added a note to explain this. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. Most of the tweaks look good, but there's one more little thing that needs to be fixed now, I think. I'm changing to a support in anticipation of this being fixed quickly. Dana boomer (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed I hope. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments.
 * "Though the ship would be much larger and more powerful than previous armored cruisers, Blücher retained the designation because Großen Kreuzer were what the Naval Laws specified." I find the last part of the sentence confusing, could you explain this better in the article?
 * Agreed; another editor inserted that during this FAC, but I liked it better the way it was and have restored it. Nate, feel free to revert or rewrite. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly the original wording is misleading. Grossen Kreuzer are what the KM was authorized to build, therefore that is what they built. Saying this is a deliberate attempt to conceal the truth from people is very bad history. Improve the prose if necessary but this is an important point... The Land (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also worth pointing out that Gardiner p.134 says precisely nothing of relevance to this sentence - that reference should be removed. The Land (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out my mistake, I was just about to leave you a message asking about it. Nate, what do you like here? - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The current wording is more understandable, and looks fine to me. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Germans expected these new British ships to be armed with six or eight 9.2-inch (23 cm) guns.[4] Therefore the German navy approved a design with twelve 21 cm (8.3 in) guns in six twin turrets." The "Therefore" doesn't really match the previous sentence. Why did they not, for example, use 23cm guns? Were more smaller guns better than fewer larger?
 * I remember removing a "therefore" in a similar sentence but don't remember if it was this article. I believe I changed it to "and" or "in response", which IIRC was as much as the source gave; is that sufficient? - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That works. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "This was a significant step forward on the previous" - wording awkward here, "step forward on the previous" isn't standard English. Should be something like "This was significantly more firepower than that of..."
 * Yep, fixing now. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "In fact, the Invincible carried eight 30.5 cm (12.0 in) of the same type mounted" - are you missing the word "guns" here?
 * Yep, fixing now. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You link to HMS Indomitable. I assume you mean HMS Indomitable (1907)
 * Yep, fixing now. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Good article, but I'd like to see these issues revolved. Jayjg (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My issues are fixed; have you looked at those raised by Dana boomer above? Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The first point has been fixed; for the others, Parsecboy will probably know the answers off the top of his head. - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I took care of the minor things (formatting/etc.) Dana mentioned earlier today, but I was away from my sources. I'll get to the rest of them tomorrow morning. Thanks for helping out, Dank. Parsecboy (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good now, I've supported. Jayjg (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments.

Ok, how does this look? Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No mention of the 21cm hit scored on Lion's "A" turret at around half ten CET, which concussed the crew and knocked out the left gun for two hours. (Goldrick.  The King's Ships were at Sea.  p. 263.)
 * I haven't seen that anywhere else (though no other source attributes any of the hits made on Lion or Tiger). Can you provide the relevant quotation from the book so I can work it in? Thanks for letting me know about this. Parsecboy (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To quote Goldrick: "At about this time Blücher struck Lion on "A" turret with a 21 cm shell. This did not pierce the armor, but the concussion was severe and the left gun was knocked out of action for two hours."
 * Alright, I added that to the article. Can you check the edit to make sure it's fine? Thanks again for bringing this up. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As to the complement, Goldrick says that the complement was 1,026, but at least 1,200 men were on board, the balance being made up from a draft from Von der Tann. He gives the number of killed as 234.  He was, I believe, working from the official British records.  (Goldrick.  p. 279.) --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm...the complement about matches what I got from the Warship International article. To be clear, Goldrick says about a thousand crewmen were pulled from the water and only 234 died? Butler's Distant Victory states that 234 men were rescued from the crew of 1,200. Is that what Goldrick means? Parsecboy (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To quote Goldrick again: "At the end, out of a complement of at least 1,026&mdash;and at least 1,200 were actually on board, the balance being made up from temporary drafts from Von der Tann&mdash;only 234 survived." Considering the number of stupid errors in Distant Victory, I'd be loath to cite it at all. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason I brought up DV was that it seemed to corroborate what Goldrick says. I'd throw out the figure from Tarrant (mentioned above by Dana boomer) as it appears to be an obvious mistake. I'm more hesitant with the WI figure (although it might just be the figures of the standard complement (29 officers and 999 men is 1028, which is only 2 off from Goldrick's 1026). He does give a higher figure for those rescued (281). I'm not sure what to do; the British official records would be the source to go to for how many men they pulled out of the water (though I suppose others may have been rescued by neutrals or u-boats - I don't have the WI article in front of me to see what it says exactly). I'm away from my sources for a couple of days, so I'm going to hold off on changing this until I'm back. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're running into the same problem I did when writing BRAZILIAN CRUISER Bahia (section link). There, I took a paragraph to explain the discrepancies between the various sources; I'm not sure if you want to do the same, but it's an idea. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm planning on doing. To add to the confusion, Gröner reports 792 fatalities, and he used official German documents. Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm biased, but if no one else is fielding this, I don't see how to improve on what you said. - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support One question though: Note #3 states in part that the ships lacked "high quality coal", could we get a specific type of coal linked for that? It may be of interest to readers later to see what the best kind of coal for the ships was vs the coal they actually burned was. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see "coal" in the indexes of Gröner, Staff, or Tarrant, and thumbing through, it's not apparent where I would find it. From Google Books, Philbin, p. 52, only says "serious problems" with the coal, nothing more.  p. 57 says that the coal was as heavy as stone.  I can't see p. 56; there may be more there. - Dank (push to talk) 04:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably we're talking about anthracite, but I've never seen any reference to specific grades of coal in anything I've read. Lignite is mined in Germany, and is probably what the ships used, but is this level of detail really all that relevant in an article like this? Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * "Despite this, Blücher was typically deployed with the German battlecruiser squadron." -- was there a significant reason why? Ie becuase she was as fast as them?
 * As far as I know, it was a numerical thing; at the outbreak of war the Germans only had 3 BCs operational in the North Sea: Seydlitz, Moltke, and Von der Tann. Tactically the fleet operated in four-ship divisions, and Blucher had no problem maintaining squadron speed.
 * Any chance at adding at least a sentence (or a refnote?) on this? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find a statement to this effect. Page 13 of Scheer shows that the battleships traveled in groups of 4 or 8, and that there were only 3 battlecruisers in Squadron III.  Scheer has lots of good stuff, but I couldn't find a discussion of why they grouped 4 ships together. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Philbin references this on page 109: "German fleet organization dictated that four large ships were the minimum strength for the scouting forces. In German tactical thinking this constituted half a squadron..." Where do you think best to put this information? Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The armored cruiser Yorck made a navigational error that led her into one of the German minefields. She struck two mines and quickly sank; only 127 men out of the crew of 629 were rescued." -- how relevant is this to Blucher?
 * Not directly, but I thought it'd be appropriate to include as it was the major result of the operation. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Confusion aboard Tiger led the captain to believe he was to fire on Seydlitz, which left Moltke able to fire without distraction." -- same problem — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I had included it to give a fuller picture of the battle, but it's really not all that necessary, so I removed it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the expert, I just wanted to draw attention to them in case you inadvertently included them. :-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  05:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.