Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Derfflinger/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 19:23, 3 November 2009.

SMS Derfflinger

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This article passed GA in August and a joint MILHIST/SHIPS A-class review slightly less than a month ago. I feel this article is pretty comprehensive, and close to FA standards. The reviews that come here will help my iron out the last few details. I appreciate any and all constructive comments and suggestions. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notes 2 and 6 seem to say the same. The first (2) covers the entire article, rendering 6 unnecessary, surely? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, someone had mentioned that the time should be clarified in the lead, and I forgot to remove the note in the lower section. Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - From the top
 * General
 * Too many commas. There are commas in places that they don't need to be, and it really disrupts the flow of the text. If I have time, I'll try to fix some of this tomorrow
 * Infobox and Lead
 * You've converted length, beam, and armament to both metric and imperial measurements. Could the same be done for the armour?
 * Done.
 * Construction
 * Is there any more information on the turbine damage suffered during trials? Was it from a collision, or simply from a technical design problem?
 * Nothing I've yet come across. It seems to have been technical malfunctions, I've seen nothing about a collision.
 * Bombardment of Scarborough, Hartlepool, and Whitby
 * Along with Seydlitz, the force consisted of Derfflinger, Moltke, Von der Tann, and Blücher, along with the light cruisers Kolberg, Strassburg, Stralsund.... The phrasing in this particular section just doesn't seem to flow very well at all. Is there any way to fix this. I think it's the repetition of "along with" that throws it off.
 * Twelve hours after Hipper left the Jade, the High Seas Fleet, consisting of 14 dreadnoughts and eight pre-dreadnoughts and a screening force of two armored cruisers, seven light cruisers, and 54 torpedo boats, departed to provide distant cover.[4]. Same problem as above. This sentence just flows very poorly. Can it be split somehow?
 * I rephrased both of those, do you think it's any better?
 * Much better.

Comments. I think this has legs, but will require some sifting through. I found a few things worthy of comment at the top. I'll try to get back to it, but may not. Comments Not being generally familiar with warship articles, I was slightly surprised at the amount of coverage of the operations in which she took part that is not specific to this ship. If that's usual, the material must be duplicated in the articles for each ship in the fleet. I would have expected to find here only detail that was specific to this particular ship, and to be referred elsewhere for general accounts of fleet history and operations. Cyclopaedic (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "and featured significant improvements over the preceding German battlecruisers". "preceding" somehow implies they've been retired. "preceding battlecruiser designs" might be OK. Or just "previous"?
 * I substituted "previous" for "preceding"
 * Do we need two links to "WW1" in the lead? I'd remove the first one, because it judders against the "battlecruiser" link.
 * We certainly don't :)
 * "the majority of WW1"? More than 50%? I'd say "most of" or "more than half of" (more than the first half of?).
 * I'm not quite sure what you're saying here; Derfflinger was assigned to the I Scouting Group only a few months after the start of the war. I'd say that's the majority.
 * Nice map, although the borders look suspiciously modern. If there's a contemporaneous map without disadvantages, I'd use it instead. It's a small point, and the current one is OK.
 * I looked through Commons when I added that map, and it's really the best one we have for the purpose of giving readers a geographic understanding of the naval war.
 * Unnecessary passive voice (twice): "It was decided by Admiral Friedrich von Ingenohl, the commander of the High Seas Fleet, that another raid on the English coast was to be carried out." Consider "Admiral Friedrich von Ingenohl, the commander of the High Seas Fleet, decided to conduct another raid on the English coast." More vivid, simple, direct? Tony   (talk)  06:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I substituted your suggestion for what's currently in the article. Thanks Tony.
 * That's how I typically write these articles. I feel that some overlap is necessary; the article wouldn't make much sense to anyone who doesn't already know about the topic if it gives no contextual information about the various battles. Basically, I don't want to make someone have to read all of the battle articles (especially the Battle of Jutland article, which is over 100kb) in order that this one make sense. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose . Generally well written article but there are problems:
 * 1) From 'Battle of Dogger Bank' subsection it is clear that Blücher sank. However, nowhere in the text this fact is directly stated. I think this probably the most event of the battle and it and its time should be mentioned.
 * A couple of sentences have been added.
 * 1) In 'Bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft' subsection the year of the battle is not specified. Readers are left on their own to guess if it happened in 1915 or 1916.
 * Corrected.
 * 1) In the same subsection there is a sentence: At this point, Scheer, who had been warned of the Grand Fleet's sortie from Scapa Flow, turned back towards Germany. Please, explain who Sheer was. This name is not mentioned before.
 * Done.
 * 1) In the next subsection (Jutland) Following severe damage inflicted by Lützow on Lion, Derfflinger lost sight of the British ship, and so transferred her fire to HMS Queen Mary at 17:16. Please, explain how this is possible? According to Battle_of_Jutland Queen Mary exploded at 16:25.
 * That article is written in UTC, this one is in CET, so it's one hour ahead.
 * I missed the note, however, I think the information about the time used should be made more prominent. Ruslik_ Zero 12:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I think the article should mention that Queen Mary was not the first battle cruiser to sink. HMS_Indefatigable was the first.
 * Done.
 * 1) The leading ships of the German battle fleet had by 18:00 come within effective range of the British ships, Please, explain what this means. Does it mean that the main High Seas Fleet came into contact with the fleet of Beatty? It is probably should be mentioned that Beatty's forces included 5th Battle Squadron.
 * I don't mean to sound snarky, but did you read the rest of the sentence? and had begun trading shots with the British battlecruisers and Queen Elizabeth-class battleships seems pretty clear to me. How else can I make this clear? I have added a line about the 5th BS.
 * I read the whole sentence. Since I do not understand two things: (1) What is German battle fleet? It is not defined. Is it High Seas Fleet? (2) Are the British ships, which met German battle fleet had by 18:00, the same as the British battlecruisers and Queen Elizabeth-class battleships? This is ambiguous.
 * The sentence should be rewritten as: "The leading ships of the German High Seas fleet had by 18:00 come within effective range of the British battlecruisers and Queen Elizabeth-class battleships and had begun trading shots with them." Ruslik_ Zero 18:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you did not answer I made the change myself. Ruslik_ Zero 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) A pause in the battle at dusk allowed Derfflinger ...  Does this refer to the period between 18:00 and 21:00?
 * Generally speaking, it's about the period of time between 20:20 (when Derfflinger et. al. abandoned the charge against the British line) and 21:10ish, when Beatty's ships attacked.
 * Did myself. Ruslik_ Zero 07:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the time should be specified. Ruslik_ Zero 18:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I think overall the Battle of Jutland subsection is not very successful in summarizing the main article. It should be shortened and made more understandable.
 * Ruslik_ Zero 08:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll get to the rest of this later, when I have the time. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To respond to your last comment, this section isn't supposed to summarize the Jutland article. It's supposed to emphasize the portions of the battle in which Derfflinger took part. If someone wants to know what the rest of the German fleet was doing at any specific point in time, they should read the battle article. Shortening the section will either: A) remove useful details, or: B) remove what context there currently exists that is necessary for an understanding of Derfflinger's actions. If there are sentences that aren't understandable, point them out so I can fix them. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will read this section again. Ruslik_ Zero 18:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One example. Are the following two sentences are really necessary? On May 22, the Wilhelmshaven dockyard reported the ship to be fit for duty, but tests carried out that night showed that the broadside torpedo flat that had been damaged by the mine was still not watertight, and there were still leaks in the fore and aft transverse bulkheads. Further repairs were necessary, and so the operation was postponed another week, by which time the Wilhelmshaven dockyard assured Scheer that the ship would be ready. Do they provide a necessary context? Are they necessary for understanding of Derfflinger? In my opinion, they would be appropriate in the article about Seydlitz, but not in this article. Ruslik_ Zero 18:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are necessary, if only to explain the disconnect between Scheer wanting to launch another operation immediately, and then the month and a half in between Yarmouth and Jutland. If you remove the paragraph entirely, you essentially have no introduction to the battle. Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not propose to remove the paragraph entirely, but only two sentences listed above. Ruslik_ Zero 18:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you have no explanation why the operation was 2 weeks late from Scheer's original intended date. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * but the mine damage to Seydlitz had proved difficult to repair—Scheer was unwilling to embark on a major raid without his battlecruiser forces at full strength Is not this enough? Ruslik_ Zero 18:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, the reader is left to assume that Seydlitz was repaired at some point between mid-May and the 31st. I'd rather be more specific than less in that kind of detail. Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At noon on 28 May, when the repairs to Seydlitz were finally completed is clear enough. In addition the paragraph about Wiesbaden is also too long. It does not mention Derfflinger and should be shortened. Ruslik_ Zero  19:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine then. Derfflinger is one of the "German battlecruisers" mentioned throughout the Wiesbaden paragraph. I don't think it's necessary to say "German battlecruisers, including Derfflinger" every time the ships are mentioned. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed two sentences. Ruslik_ Zero 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While I struck my oppose, I continue to believe that Jutland section can still be improved. Ruslik_ Zero 07:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review:
 * How do you know that File:SMS Hindenburg ScapaFlow1919.jpg is PD? The LOC website hosts many images, not just US Government ones.
 * The LOC page (here) states "no known restrictions on publication"
 * File:SMS Derfflinger crest.jpg has no source.
 * Removed.
 * File:Bluecher sinkend.jpg has two contradictory copyright tags.
 * The PD-USGOV tag was incorrect, I've removed that; it's an IWM photograph.
 * Oppose pending resolution of these. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Very good, thanks! Stifle (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Support --Brad (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Convert templates not complete. Infobox needs Speed and range conversions. There are other measurements in the article that need doing as well. Don't forget that knots and nautical miles need mph as well as km/h.
 * References section needs OCLC numbers. --Brad (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OCLC (or ISBN numbers) are not a requirement of FAC. They are handy, yes, but not required. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So we should just do the minimum we can get away with? Why not improve the article? --Brad (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How does having the numbers improve the article? It might make the sources more easy to find, but these are already easy to find, and the use of the numbers just links the Bibliography to that particular edition. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OCLCs have been added, please check the hidden comment I left. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  04:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments/Preliminary SUPPORT. Reiterating SUPPORT Article has undergone a few changes, based on subsequent comments from Jackyd and others. It is still good, actually BETTER, and I still support it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC) I gave this a thorough read at GA and again at the MilHistory review. It's a very good article, and certainly meets the criteria of coverage, prose, citation, in the FA criteria. I'll leave it to others to address images. That said, I have a couple more prose issues that weren't reasonable to deal with at GA but are now. Despite these nitpickings, Nitpickings addressed. This is an excellent article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with whoeveer it was above that quibbled on the "majority of" phrase. Majority usually refers to individual animate units, a majority of his peers, etc.  If we wanted to show that apples in a barrel had gone bad, we would not say, the majority of the apples were bad, we would say most of the apples are bad.  So I suspect what you need here is to say Derfflinger was part of the I Scouting Group for most of World War I, and was involved in several fleet actions during the war.  It "sounds" very odd the other way.  Or:  From commissioning on 1 September 1914 to internment at Scapa Flow on 21 June 1919, Derfflinger was part of I Scouting group, and participated in several fleet actions during the war..... (then shorten sentence at the end of the paragraph.)  OR  ???
 * Derfflinger was interned with the rest of the High Seas fleet at Scapa Flow following the armistice in November 1918. Under the orders of Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter, the interned ships were scuttled on 21 June 1919; Derfflinger sank at 14:45. Redundant. How about: Derfflinger was interned with the rest of the High Seas fleet at Scapa Flow under the orders of Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter. She sank at 14:45 on 21 June 1919.
 * in Jutland section: This engagement lasted only a few short minutes before Admiral Mauve turned his ships 8-points to starboard; the British inexplicably did not pursue.  I know a regular minute is 60 seconds.  How long is a short minute?  ;) How about just saying a few minute before Admiral Mauve turned his ships....
 * problem with time: why don't you just convert the time markings to the same set that are used in the your linked battles? Is there a standard?

Needs to disambiguate the HMS Defense link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This must have gotten lost in the shuffle, but I have now fixed this. Thanks for pointing that out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments This is a very nice article as far as it goes, but is there a reason why very little of the most excellent (and to my mind most relevant) technical information in Derfflinger class battlecruiser regarding armament, armour, propulsion and the like has made it into this article? Obviously only information concerning Derfflinger should appear, and then in a truncated form, but given the difference in quantity (and thereby, I'm afraid, quality) of technical data between the class article and the ship article it certainly feels like something is missing - I don't think a reader should have to read them both if they are looking for information about just the one ship. I also think the lead needs a rewrite - a the moment a lot of the sentences don't flow into one another - none of the sentences in the first paragraph really connect at all. That said, I think the historical sections of the article are excellent - the only problem is that they seem to be the only real substance the article has.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a good way of seeing my point is to look at the ship class article: there you have good technical sections, followed by brief histories of each ship. Here you should have brief technical sections followed by an extended history. Unfortunately at the moment the technical section is too small.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * do you mean more like the Seydlitz article? which has longer discussions of armament, design, weaponry, etc.? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue with that would be that Seydlitz was a unique vessel (and hence a class article did not exist) that was not a member of a class like Derfflinger was (so a class article does not exist in the case of Seydlitz. -MBK004 23:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing, I'm just asking to see if there is a parallel case in a different article he's written. I'm trying to understand the suggestion, I guess.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the Moltke class/and specific ships and the size of the development/description is the same. Actually, I liked it this way, because I get "bored" with the technical stuff, unless it is in the context of the battle descriptions.  Which Parsecboy did -- he incorporated some of the technical material into the Derfflinger engagements.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was too quick to judge as I see there is established precedent for this kind of layout (and note that I wasn't opposing until I'd had some feedback on this issue). To be completely honest, Seydlitz is closer to what I would expect in an FA than Moltke, although since another article covers it in greater detail the technical information doesn't need to be as extensive as in Seydlitz. I am therefore revising my suggestion to a mild expansion of technical data in the construction section (approximately another paragraph) and a clearer link to where this information can be found i.e. an at the head of the construction section.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Auntieruth and MBK for participating in this discussion. I do think you (Jackyd) have a point that it could be a bit longer; I'll try to get to expanding it later in the week. Thanks for your suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I finally got a bit of time to get to this; I fleshed out the section and added a details link to the class article. How does that look now? Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also tweaked the lead; the sentence about her namesake seemed out of place where it was, and it had a bit too much detail. I trimmed it slightly and put it at the end of the first para. How does it read now? Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) At a glace it looks much better, although I want to do one more read through before I support, and I won't have time to do it until tomorrow. Good job though.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, as I did at its Milhist ACR, and I see no reason for it not to take the bronze star as well. As usual, made a couple of minor copyedits but generally the prose has continued to improve, and illustration, referencing and structure are top-notch. My only remaining suggestion is to lose the passive in In early January 1915, it became known that British ships were reconnoitering in the Dogger Bank area. Can we say to whom exactly it became known, e.g. In early January 1915, so-and-so (or such-and-such) became aware of British ships reconnoitering in the Dogger Bank area.? Well done no matter what, though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ian. Your edits are good, you've assumed just the right amount :) I tweaked that line to remove the passive voice, thanks for pointing that out. Parsecboy (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.