Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Brandenburg/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2017.

SMS Brandenburg

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Another German battleship article - I created it all the way back in 2007. It has obviously been significantly expanded in the intervening decade, with most of the work being done this past April. It went through a MILHIST A-class review after that, and has been waiting for me to have the time to put it up here. As for the ship itself, Brandenburg was the first modern ocean-going battleship of the German Navy, and she saw extensive use through the 1890s and early 1900s. During that time, she was sent with the other Brandenburg-class ships to China during the Boxer Rebellion, but by the time they got there, the rebellion had petered out. She was mobilized at the outbreak of World War I, but due to her age, she saw no action, and she was broken up after the war. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest scaling up the Shandong map
 * Good idea.
 * Brassey's should be italicized
 * Done.
 * File:SMS_Brandenburg_NH_88644.tiff: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unknown, but per the NHHC, the photos in their collection are PD in the US unless otherwise stated. These kinds of photos were routinely collected by ONI for intelligence on foreign navies, which suggests the photo was in circulation at the time. Thanks as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda
Thank you for another classy ship, comments as I read:

Lead
 * link I Division?
 * Linked to I Battle Squadron, probably the best place for that to go.

Design ... to 1896 Will continue later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we place the image right, to avoid sandwiching of text?
 * If we do that, it'll be pushed down below the infobox and into the sections below, so it either stays where it is or we'd have to remove it. It would probably fit somewhere in the narrative, but it would be out of place, I'd think.
 * You could move it bolow the infobox, and move the next one further down, it's very general, could go almost anywhere. ---GA
 * G'day Gerda and, if you want an image to go on the right but inside rather than below the bottom of the infobox, you can use the template. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not familiar with the topic, may be a silly question: Do we start two sentences in a row with Brandenburg?
 * I'm not seeing where that is, can you point it out?
 * Don't see it anymore. ---GA
 * Do we know more about the illustration?
 * Added the illustrator and the approximate date
 * "Wilhelm II." has a dot, in German. I suggest you use that consistently or call him in English. "Wilhelm II" looks wrong.
 * I've always used Wilhelm II (and that's how it's done at Wilhelm II, German Emperor
 * Always learning. I'd understand "William II" and "Wilhelm II.". ---GA
 * The red link to the beach helps nobody, - how about Strande which at least has a map. Makes me wonder if a few maps marking where she went would be good?
 * Yeah, but I'd think articles on the bays will eventually be created. How about turning the red link into a redirect to Strande for now?
 * "Prinz Heinrich" or "Prince Henry", please.
 * Done
 * don't think Wiker Bucht should have a red link, - not even Wike in sight
 * As above, my assumption is that eventually, all place names will have articles, so red links now don't do any harm.
 * For people who are not coloublind it adds unwanted emphasis. I'd unlink for now and link when the article is there. ---GA
 * The link to Baltic Sea comes late, which might provide readers with little understanding for German waters with a basic direction.
 * Yeah, though I don't see a good place to move it earlier.
 * add in the Baltic Sea to the first-mentioned bay? ---GA
 * "before the ships had to put into their home"? be put?
 * It's a common nautical expression
 * Can you the expresseion to my, I mean: who puts, the ship herself? I'd understand "before the ships had to be put into their home". ---GA
 * link Kaiser Wilhelm Canal?
 * It's linked in that section

Boxer WWI Again, thank you! Excellent readable layout of references! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * link marks?
 * Done
 * "rendezvoused" - is that a word?
 * Sure is.
 * "Norddeutsche Tiefbauges" is no word, should be Norddeutsche Tiefbaugesellschaft.
 * I got that one. - Dank (push to talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan.
 * Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Supoort - do with the minor issues as you like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

 * Nicely done. I have only two small quibbles, as follows:


 * General
 * Some of the images have alt text, but some don't. It would be good to add the missing ones.
 * I've added alt text, to the best of my ability


 * Boxer Rebellion
 * ¶1 "the German Plenipotentiary" – Lowercase plenipotentiary?
 * Fixed, good catch.
 * That's all. Finetooth (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Switching to support, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review
All sources of appropriate quality and reliability. All references consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Oppose Support from Ranger Steve
I'd like to see more background in this article. Parsecboy mentions above that this was the German Navy's first modern ocean going battleship, but that is not mentioned anywhere in the article. The first two sentences of the lead are similarly not expanded upon anywhere else. If this was an FA I'd expect to see a background section explaining why the German Navy decided to build this class of vessel, especially as it's such a step up from their previous designs. There's a clear change in naval strategy represented by this ship which I feel should be explained as well. A word on the evolution of the battleship of the period would be useful too - I'm not expecting a full history of ship design from Warrior onwards, but something to explain what a pre-dreadnought was is necessary per FA criteria 1b (ie. that the subject's context is given). I don't know if there's any information about the evolution of this ship's specific design (or even the designer), but that would be a welcome addition too. For instance, where did the German Navy draw their inspiration for a battleship if they'd never built one? Did they employ foreign assistance? Additionally the obsolescence of the ship is mentioned in the lead but not in the main article.

The Service History section is thorough and detailed, but I think could either be padded out a little, or reworded, to improve a few instances of choppy text (for example "Individual ship training was conducted though April, followed by squadron training in the North Sea in late April and early May. This included a visit to the Dutch ports of Vlissingen and Nieuwediep. Further maneuvers, which lasted from the end of May to the end of July, took the squadron further north in the North Sea, frequently into Norwegian waters. The ships visited Bergen from 11 to 18 May. During the maneuvers, Wilhelm II and the Chinese viceroy Li Hongzhang observed a fleet review off Kiel.[12] On 9 August, the training fleet assembled in Wilhelmshaven for the annual autumn fleet training.[9]"). Regards, Ranger Steve   Talk  12:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A small point for this sentence: "The typical routine was interrupted in early August when Wilhelm II and Kaiserin (Empress) Augusta went to visit the Russian imperial court at Kronstadt; both divisions of the I Squadron were sent to accompany the Kaiser." The Russian imperial court was in St Petersburg, not Kronstadt. No doubt the ship went to Kronstadt, but the Kaiser will have gone to St Petersburg. I'd suggest rewording this top clarify. Ranger Steve   Talk  13:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That kind of background information is better suited to the Brandenburg-class battleship article - in general, class articles should cover the design history, strategic rationale, etc. while individual ship articles should focus on the service history. I have Nottelmann, and the class article will at some point be rewritten based on that, which will cover a lot of what you're asking for in terms of background and context.
 * Part of the rationale for shorter sentences like that is to counteract my tendency to write longer, more complex sentences - this is especially a problem when translating German ;) Also, I think it gives some variety to the reader.
 * Good catch, fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I see the class/ship article argument quite often, but I'm afraid I'm unmoved by it. For a start, I see nothing in WP:Ship's MoS to support this style and, even if there is such a guideline, I can't see how it would override Wikipedia policy. WP:SS states that "Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article. It also contains a link back to the parent article and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles.". In this case, the content of the class article should be summarised in the ship article. The ship's design fits this exact style, with a link to the class article and a summary of the design in this article; I don't see why this should apply only to the design and not the background. Furthermore, no WP:Ships policy would overrule Featured article criteria, which requires an article that "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Context for the building of this ship is provided by a background as I've outlined. I cannot agree that the context required for this article to be an FA is provided by a different article that hasn't yet been rewritten to include it. In any case, there's still three sentences in the lead that aren't expanded upon in the article, which fails another policy; WP:LEAD. I'm sorry, but I stand by my comments.
 * I take your point about sentence structure, but I'm afraid I can't see 9 word isolated sentences that should be part of the previous sentence as FA quality. Regards, Ranger Steve   Talk  06:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The SHIPMOS is woefully underdeveloped, in part due to the limited number of editors involved in the project - I wouldn't put much stock in what it doesn't say. What's more important is that between a couple of other editors and I, we've written around 150 FAs based on this format over the last 8 or 10 years, which is to say that there's fairly broad consensus that the way we write articles is perfectly acceptable in terms of the FA criteria. This is a complete encyclopedic article. The idea that an entire parent article should be summarized in the child article is a little absurd - any background section will not function in the same way that the introduction to the parent article would. Some—probably much—of the information in the parent article will be left out, and since one must draw the line somewhere, I and others have chosen to draw it where we have. I've addressed the three sentences you pointed out in the lead. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I strongly disagree. What’s more important is WP and FA policy and criteria, which I’ve already outlined. You may think that summarising the content of another article in this one is ridiculous, but you’re going against basic Wikipedia guidelines that are also an FA criteria. Moreover, as I’ve already pointed out, you have already chosen to do it in one aspect of the ship, but not others. An informal agreement that you and a few editors have, which has never even been written down, much less assessed by the community, is not in any way comparable to the agreed FA criteria, which are quite clear.
 * WP:SS and the other FA criteria state that context is necessary and this isn’t a complete article without it. Although the service history is good, without a background we’re simply told that one day Germany decided to build a new type of ship, without ever knowing why. I’m afraid that without some basic background to establish the context of this ship’s construction I need to switch to oppose. Ranger Steve   Talk  12:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You missed my point, which is that you are opposing based on your singular interpretation, one that is not shared by the wider community, based on 150 or FACs over the better part of the last decade. This is not just an informal agreement, but a fairly broad consensus. You are free to oppose the FAC, and the FAC delegates are free to weight your opposition in light of the above. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but I haven't. You may have established a consensus between a handful of editors, but there is a more relevant consensus in FA criteria and WP:SS, which is much larger and formalised. "Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit". That is the consensus reached by the wider community, not yours, which you say yourself is between only a couple of editors.  Ranger Steve   Talk  13:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is getting into WP:IDHT territory, so this will be my last comment on the matter. This isn't a consensus between me and a couple of other editors, but the scores of reviewers who have participated in those 150 or so FACs. If your concerns were felt by the wider community, this would have come up at least once or twice in the last decade. It hasn't. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Equally it's drifting into WP:otherstuffexists, so this will be my final comment. I've read and reviewed this article against the FA criteria and I feel it is lacking in requirements 1A, 1B and 4. I'm not reviewing it against previous FAs, nor am I reviewing it against a consensus so vague that it isn't even written down anywhere; that's simply not how Wikipedia works. The fact that other reviewers haven't critiqued content in other articles is of no relevance to my critiquing of this one. Reluctantly I must oppose . Ranger Steve   Talk  13:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Switching to Support in light of changes made. Ranger Steve  Talk  09:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67
I reviewed this article in detail at Milhist ACR in July, and have looked at the changes since, including the additional para of background added after the above discussion with, the c/e by Dank, and the other tweaks here and there. The sources are all reliable specialist naval and history books. I believe the article meets the FA criteria. I've made a suggestion above about stacking and floating the first main body image to the right inside the infobox if that is desired to avoid sandwiching text. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I notice that a couple of the images are still missing alt text, which would be good to fix. We also have quite a few duplinks which could be looked at and cleared up a little. This tool will highlight any duplication. Neither of these points warrants delaying promotion. Finally, this may be one of those rare FACs which we should frame and display prominently; a disagreement was resolved amicably through discussion and consensus, and I wish all nominations were handled as professionally as this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.