Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Hessen/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2018.

SMS Hessen

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Another German battleship article at FAC - this one was the only member of her class to see action at the Battle of Jutland, and she was the oldest battleship on either side present. Over the course of a very long career, she served under three different German navies along with the Soviet Navy. I initially wrote this article eight years ago before completely rewriting it last year; it has since passed a MILHIST A-class review. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Note, I forgot to actually transclude the nomination until now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Peacemaker67
A few observations from me: That's me done. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * suggest "covered the retreat of the battered German battlecruisers away from the British battlecruiser squadron.
 * Done
 * suggest grammar tweak " After Jutland revealed how inadequate pre-dreadnoughts like Hessen were in the face of more modern weapons, and she..."
 * How about "so" instead of "and"? "and she and her sisters" sounds repetitive to me.
 * suggest "Re-armed, she served with the fleet in the 1920s and early 1930s..."
 * Good idea
 * I think the mention of HMS Dreadnought should be cut from where it is and inserted into the service history in the appropriate chronological point. It would fit perfectly at the end of the first para.
 * To me, it makes more sense in the design section, since it has more to do with technical characteristics than it does a specific event in the ship's activities
 * I find it jars when we haven't even got her to sea and we're being told she is going to be obsolete, but she didn't become such until after she went to sea. But it is a fairly minor matter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about this? Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * in the body, power is initially given in metric horsepower, but in ihp in the infobox
 * Good catch
 * the number of TTs is not given in infobox
 * Fixed
 * perhaps link North Sea?
 * Done
 * Prince Heinrich? What did he have to do with naval matters? link?
 * Good catch - after writing so many of these, I can forget what I've unpacked and what I haven't sometimes
 * "latest underwater weapons" is this a euphemism for submarines, mines and torpedoes? Perhaps just say that, as it begs the question.
 * Good idea
 * link Skagerrak at first mention
 * Done
 * when it says " the oldest battleship in service with the main fleet", perhaps add in there what had happened to her sisters?
 * Added a line on this
 * suggest "18 April to 9 May 1929"
 * Done
 * Thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking these, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Factotem
On Prose:

Design
 * ...all mounted submerged in the hull Not sure "submerged" is the right word here. Do you mean "under the waterline"?
 * How about "below the waterline"?
 * Even better. Factotem (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Pre-war career
 * Her armored belt was 110 to 250 millimeters (4.3 to 9.8 in) thick, with the heavier armor in the central portion that protected her magazines and propulsion machinery spaces, and the thinner plating at the ends of the hull Literally read, this says that the central portion protected the magazines etc., but I suspect you mean the heavier armour there was doing the protection. Also, "ends of the hull" could be written better. Maybe "Her armored belt was 110 to 250 millimeters (4.3 to 9.8 in) thick, the heavier armor in the central portion protecting her magazines and propulsion machinery, and the thinner plating at either end of the hull"? This also eliminates the troublesome use of "with" as a conjunction and the unnecessary "spaces".
 * That works for me.
 * ...shipyard sea trials... Is this correct? Sea trials in the confines of a shipyard? Looks like an oxymoron to me.
 * Yeah, that's correct - the builder conducted trials of its own before it delivered the ship to the navy.
 * ... the fleet assembled for the annual autumn fleet maneuvers, held with the bulk of the fleet... If the fleet assembled, then "held with the bulk of the fleet" is just tautology.
 * Good point.
 * Hessen won the Kaiser's Schießpreis (Shooting Prize) for excellent shooting in the II Squadron... Last part reads a bit awkwardly to me. I'm not sure you need the definite article, but more importantly, it reads as if the Hessen fired its guns into the rest of II Squadron. Is it important to include II Squadron in the assertion? You might be better simply to state "Hessen won the Kaiser's Schießpreis (Shooting Prize) for excellent shooting".
 * The reason for including the squadron was that the Kaiser awarded a prize for each squadron, so
 * Then maybe "Hessen was the II Squadron winner of the Kaiser's Schießpreis (Shooting Prize) for excellent shooting"? Factotem (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me.


 * The year 1914 began uneventfully, with the only event of note... If there was even one notable event, you cannot describe the year as uneventful. Maybe "The year 1914 began quietly..."?
 * I was thinking that the uneventful part was the beginning of the year - the one event noted was in May.
 * You're still basically saying "It was uneventful, except for the event in May". It's contradictory and jarring. If my suggestion is not to your taste, then maybe "The year 1914 was uneventful until May, when..."? Factotem (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense - I went with your original suggestion.

World War I
 * ...scheduled to be withdrawn to reserve status... Would it be more correct to say either that it was "downgraded to reserve status" or "withdrawn into the reserve"?
 * I like the latter option.
 * ...with her place in the II Squadron... I get confused about this with army units. Is it correct to use the definite article here? I know that it would be wrong to use it when talking about army company-level formations, which are, I believe, analogous to naval squadrons.
 * I think you're right - these should be gone now.

Battle of Jutland
 * At 03:07, Hessen narrowly avoided a torpedo, but Pommern, the ship directly ahead of Hessen, was not so lucky. At 03:10, Pommern was struck by at least one torpedo, which is believed to have detonated one of the ship's 6.7 in (17 cm) shell magazines, destroying the ship. Hessen was undamaged. POV; it was lucky for the British. Also not sure that we need to know timings to the minute, and we can infer that Hessen was not damaged. Maybe "Hessen narrowly avoided a torpedo, but directly ahead, Pommern was struck by at least one, which is believed to have detonated one of her 6.7 in (17 cm) shell magazines, destroying the ship."?
 * I've adopted most of that, though I left the first time in and the bit about Hessen being undamaged - my point there was that Hessen wasn't struck by any debris from Pommern (for instance, when FRENCH BATTLESHIP Liberté blew up in 1911, the explosion did this to another battleship moored a couple hundred yards away)
 * Are ships so frequently damaged by debris from other ships exploding that you have to state explicitly that Hessen wasn't damaged? It seems so odd. You've already stated that Hessen avoided a torpedo, and that it was the Pommern that was hit. I think that we can assume that Hessen wasn't damaged, and I'm not sure that if you left that out there would be anybody wondering whether the Hessen was damaged Factotem (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, that's a fair assumption.

That's all from me on prose. Factotem (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In the above, you've reversed the unit of measure order ("6.7 in (17 cm)"). Most of the article leads with cm and converts to inches. It's also reversed when you discuss the armament of HMS Dreadnought. That's understandable, I guess, given the nationality, but I suspect that consistency takes priority.
 * Fixed both
 * Aboard Hessen, it was assumed that a submarine had destroyed Pommern; at 03:12 Hessen fired her main battery at an imagined submarine.[32] Hessen and several other battleships engaged imaginary submarines again at 05:06, and again at 05:13. -> "Aboard Hessen, it was assumed that a submarine had destroyed Pommern, and at 03:12 she fired her main battery at what was believed to be the target.[32] She and several other battleships engaged imaginary submarines again at 05:06 and 05:13."?
 * I don't know that we can make the leap that Hessen's gunners believed the submarine they thought they saw was the one that had sunk Pommern. But I have replaced the last "Hessen" with "she" to avoid some redundancy.

Source review
 * I understand the preference at FAC is to have consistent ISBN formats. You have a mix of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13.
 * These should be fixed now
 * Minor quibble: ISBN provided for Campbell's Jutland : an analysis of the fighting appears to refer to the US edition published by Lyons Press in NY. British edition has the ISBN 9780851777504.
 * I'll have to take a look at what my hard copy has.
 * The ASIN number for both volumes of Die Deutschen Kriegschiffe is duplicated. Don't they have unique IDs? Also, the ASIN link results in an error.
 * These have been swapped for ISBNs - when I first started using the book, I had cribbed the citations from other articles where it had been used, which had the ASIN numbers in them.

Spotchecks

Online access was available to me for only three refs:
 * Refs #2 (Staff p. 4) & #10 (Staff p. 7) OK
 * Ref #41 (Williams p. 231) The source does not itself establish any link between the gun displayed at the Australian War Memorial and the Hessen specifically. It states only that the gun was "...designed for a German class of battle-cruiser already obsolete in 1914..."
 * That citation is just for the fact that the Amiens Gun is preserved at the AWM - the citation to François covers the fact that the Amiens Gun came from Hessen.
 * Suggest, then, that you move the Francios ref to the end as well. That way you're fully covered. Factotem (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness
 * That works for me. Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems fine as far as I can ascertain. I googled "sms hessen" for books, and found only Unmanned Systems of World Wars I and II and Battles at Sea in World War I - Jutland to be relevant. Both have some information relating to the ship, but nothing that is not already covered in the article. Factotem (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking all of this, Factotem - it's much appreciated. Parsecboy (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * "the II Squadron": Not taking a position, but be consistent with "the".
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to on this one - I had removed all of them before you copyedited the article, and the only thing I'm finding now is Factotem's suggested wording on the Schiesspreis (see above), but I wouldn't think that situation would apply.
 * I found one and made the edit, check it please. - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see why I wasn't finding it - I was searching for "the I" in the edit window - it was the first one, which was linked. Thanks Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "During the "Run to the North",": My interpretation of WP:INTEXT is that either the quote marks need to be dropped (and possibly some text can be added), or the source of the quote needs to be attributed.
 * It's the name for that phase of the battle, not a quote.
 * 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) 22:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

 * Link squadron, steamship, Elbe, admiral, Altenbruch, round
 * All done.
 * I think that mentioning her position in the battleline and assignment to II Battle Squadron in the lede is a little too much detail.
 * Yeah, that's a good point
 * at the Germaniawerft shipyard?
 * fixed
 * construction number is probably better rendered and linked as yard number--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Fifelfoo
Observations around 1b 1c 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cassell Military Paperbacks appears to be a Series, rather than a publisher. The publisher would be Cassell.  Correspondingly, sometimes it assists the reader to know which particular Osprey series a work was published in, some are better than others.
 * Fixed Cassell and added the series for the two Osprey books
 * Cheers! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Source variety is good for the narrative being representative of correct synthesis of scholarly consensus
 * Q: A number of grognard presses have been used. Is there any risk of the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, obviously transposed onto the Kaiserlich Marine, here?  (I'm asking this question of all military history articles, of all susceptibility to black/white myths)
 * Not that I'd imagine for a ship like this. The thing I'd be concerned about with German ships (and this holds true for all of the colonial powers, of course) would be the colonial cruisers of the late 19th and early 20th century, since their crews might well have been involved with imperialist repression of colonized peoples, which modern historians might not be so keen to discuss.
 * Q: Were any historiographical issues of note raised in your reading? I do know this is unlikely with SMS Hessen.  (I'm asking this question of all historical articles).
 * No, the German Imperial Navy and the naval campaign of WWI isn't a particularly controversial topic. There are still arguments on the British side (Brooks' and Sumida's arguments about British fire control come to mind), but this article doesn't discuss any of that. Thanks Fifelfoo. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  13:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.