Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)/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 23:28, 10 July 2011.

SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

SMS Friedrich der Grosse was the flagship of the High Seas Fleet for the majority of World War I and saw heavy service, including the Battle of Jutland; she was ultimately scuttled in Scapa Flow at the end of the war and later raised for scrapping. I wrote this article back in December last year; it has since passed a GA review a MILHIST A-class review. I feel this article is very close to FA quality, and any issues that are identified can be addressed during the review. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * DAB/EL check - There are no dead links but there are two dabs. GamerPro64  20:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. Parsecboy (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Support I had reviewed the article at A-class review and have nothing to add here. But I still can't get over the fact that Grosse is spelled without the Eszett ß. Well done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "The crewmen intentionally worked slow as a form of passive resistance" - source?
 * Smolke or Schmolke?
 * Be consistent in how page ranges are notated. For example, why "pp. 246–7" but "pp. 231–232"?
 * Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations, and if so in what cases those are wikilinked. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does what is essentially a dictionary definition really require a citation? Would linking "go-slow" to Slowdown rather than using the footnote make everyone happy?
 * Fixed the rest. Thanks for checking these, Nikkimaria. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Prose & citation review -- prose generally appears to be good, and all statements appear to be cited; some points: (OD)Support on reviewed criteria: 1(a), 1(d), 1(e), 2, and 4. Cool. In addition to the above, neutrality, stability, style, and detail criteria appear to be met. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Friedrich der Grosse was assigned to the III Squadron of the High Seas Fleet -- is it standard in the German Navy to say "the III Squadron" and not simply "III Squadron" (as we tend to in the Commonwealth)? If it was "3rd Squadron" the definite article would make sense but appears not.
 * In early 1914, Friedrich der Grosse participated in additional ship and unit training. -- What is a "unit" in this instance?
 * At 17:45, Scheer ordered a two-point turn to port to bring his ships closer to the British battlecruisers and the accompanying fast battleships of the 5th Battle Squadron; a minute later, the order to open fire was given. -- Was it Scheer who gave the order? Be nice to avoid the passive voice here and say that so-and-so did it.
 * The series of reversals in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and inverted the order -- What exactly do you mean by "inverted" here?
 * made clear to von Reuter -- Must admit I thought "von" was capitalised when not preceded by the first name but perhaps I'm wrong, pls clarify for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't actually know - I mainly have been doing that because it sounds right in my head (i.e., if one reads III aloud as Third)
 * "Unit" here refers to the III Squadron
 * Yes, Scheer gave the order - passive voice fixed.
 * Substituted "reversed" for "inverted" - is that clearer now?
 * I believe it should be capitalized just by itself if there is no name or rank. Thanks again, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re. "the III Squadron", I'm not going to make a fuss about it myself, main thing is that you're consistent
 * Re. "unit", that's fine, just wanted to make sure it wasn't equivalent to "ship", which would've been redundant
 * Re. change to active voice, tks
 * Re. "inverted", sorry to be a dog worrying a bone but in what way was the order "reversed" -- do you mean it was cancelled by whoever gave it, overturned by someone else in authority, or simply ignored by the fleet? I'm keen not just to get the nuance right, but also to avoid "reversed" appearing in the same sentence as "reversals"... ;-)
 * Re. "Von", tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just that the order of the ships was reversed (i.e., SMS König led the line initially but afterward was located close to the rear of the formation). Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OMG, you didn't mean "order" as in "command", but "order" as in "sequence"...?! Heh, sorry but earlier you had "Scheer ordered the fleet..." and I gathered it was this order (command) that was "inverted" (or reversed or overturned, etc). Okay, let's start again but clarify: how about The series of reversals in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and inverted the sequence of the ships (or The series of alterations in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and reversed the sequence of the ships) if that's what you mean. Don't you love the English language? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, gotta love multiple meanings for the same word that aren't exactly clear from context :) I opted for the first wording. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 04:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review: all images used in article are acceptably PD. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 21:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment What about using Template:sfn? TGilmour (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * sfn appears to be solely Harvard referencing, which is not used by historians. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? TGilmour (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just not the style guide used by academic historians. Generally the CMS is used in history journals, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. TGilmour (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Support Really meets the criteria. Brilliant article. TGilmour (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No comment on the article, but TGilmour is a blocked sockpuppet.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Parsecboy, could you please remind me whether you've had a close paraphrasing check in another FAC? I lose track, and we've seen many issues lately in MilHist articles ... not to pick on you :) Independent review is lacking, but it seems ships rarely get that.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't had one - I took a bit of time off from FAC (and Wikipedia in general) for a couple of months, which seems to have coincided with the close paraphrasing issue coming out. Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you ping Nikkimaria, she may do it, but the poor dear is terribly overworked :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I can - it's pretty much all print sources, most of which I don't have easy access to. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the actual issue/checking procedure, but here goes: Staff Battleships pg. 6 (not p. 14), Gardiner, Barrett and Halpern are mostly in Google books; I didn't see anything close with the Staff, Gardiner or Barrett refs, but with Halpern Citation 46 was ok, but 47 has close-paraphrasing.
 * Article: On 18 September, the order was issued for a joint operation with the army to capture Ösel and Moon Islands;... vs. Halpern p.214 The doubts were overcome, and on 18 September the orders for the joint operation to capture Ösel and Moon Island were issued.
 * Parsecboy, citation 3 doesn't say anything about a replacement for the obsolete coastal defense ship Heimdall, you probably need to cite that separately.
 * I can try to review Tarrant since its over half of the citations; the 1995 version is my library. Kirk (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How does this change look re: Halpern?
 * There's still a lot of words (order, joint operation, capture, issue) in common but I can see the argument those are all technical terms. I'd ping one of the admins because I don't know exactly what they want to address - it might have been fine as is. Kirk (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting a third opinion would be fine (perhaps Nikkimaria could take a look at this?) - I've always thought that paraphrasing had more to do with similar sentence structure than with word choice, but I could be wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's both, but in this particular case I'd say it's been sufficiently rephrased. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ersatz" means "replacement", I was just spelling it out for non-German speakers. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it, sorry about that! Kirk (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I can see why you thought that. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


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