Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS König Albert/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 GrahamColm 16:02, 19 August 2012.

SMS König Albert

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Another one of my WWI-era German battleships, this was the only ship to miss the Battle of Jutland, since she was in dockyard hands for routine maintenance. I wrote this article back in December 2010, it passed GA in January 2011, and a MILHIST ACR in March of this year (see here). I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the standards of FAC and exemplifies our best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "sister ship": Do we usually link that at first occurrence?
 * "Princess Mathilde of Saxony christened the ship and her brother, the last king of Saxony, Friedrich August III.": She broke a bottle of champagne over his head?
 * "disposed with the inefficient hexagonal turret arrangement": disposed of. Per for instance http://www.dailywritingtips.com/uses-of-dispose/, "disposed with" means "put into a settled state".
 * "toward", "towards": consistency. AmEng has a slight preference for "-ward", BrEng for "-wards".
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (The toolserver may not show the most recent edits.) Amazing progress over the last couple of years, Nate. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dan, your edits look good. And yeah, you had to watch out for Princess Mathilde, sometimes she just got excited about breaking champagne bottles ;) Everything should be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Images are all correctly licensed (OK, so File:SMS_König_Albert.jpg gives two different reasons why the file is PD, but that doesn't matter. Both are correct.) Bit confused by "The shaded areas represent the portions of the ship protected by armor" because I can't see any obviously defined areas, shading goes from light to dark as far as I can see and I can't believe the armour was that patchy. Maybe it was, but could you give it another look? The caption doesn't actually say what we're looking at, which would be helpful at least. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a bad original scan (that I had copied from Google Books) - I'll try to clean it up this evening. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I uploaded a slightly cleaned up version of the line drawing - see how it looks now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better in terms of shading. I think the caption needs to say something about what we're looking at – a plan of the class, or schematic, or whatever it's called. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I had missed that part of your first comment. I've clarified the caption. Parsecboy (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, perfect. Happy to sign off this part of the review. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments
 * I don't think the namesake is cited
 * Does it really need to be? The namesake died 8 years before the ship was launched, and his niece and nephew were involved in the launching ceremonies (which is to say, how likely is it that the ship was named after the Medieval King Alberts?)
 * Its a challengeble fact, so it should be cited; there's no exception for 'everyone knows that', sorry.
 * My initial reaction was that this isn't an interesting question, but now I think it is. Per WP:V, citations are for claims that are either being challenged or likely to be challenged (by somebody), with just a few specific exceptions and recommendations. Of course, stuff that isn't general knowledge is likely to be challenged by someone at some point; thus the sourcing requirements at FAC. But if you personally believe the information to be true, and you also believe that it's unlikely that any reader will challenge the assertion, then WP:V says it doesn't need a citation. What makes this interesting for me is: what if it isn't common knowledge, but after learning something in the article that is cited, it becomes completely obvious?  Is that "likely to be challenged"? I don't know. (In this particular case, I'm pretty sure I agree with Parsec, but since he and I work together a lot, you probably shouldn't take my word for that.)  - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was curious why the ranges and speeds are in nmi/knots converted to metric instead of km / kmh? Someone probably asked this before...
 * Do you mean why the primary units are nmi and knots? Or why the conversions also include Imperial measurements?
 * Why the primary units were nmi and knots, yes.
 * Doesn't it make sense to use nautical units of measurement as the primary units? To use land units would be like saying the governor in my Ford Ranger cuts the engine off at Mach .128 (98mph) . Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought nations that used the metric system usually used the metric system for nautical distances and speeds. Not a big deal - its all converted anyways and consistent with every other ship article.
 * The generic north sea graphic isn't that useful - its probably better replaced by one of the graphics of the actions mentioned in this section.
 * Another editor asked for a map of the North Sea during the A-class review, and there aren't any really useful (or relevant) images in the other articles.
 * I'll ponder this for a bit. Kirk (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess a better map would be some kind of summary of the actions in the North Sea, which doesn't exist yet in wikipedia.
 * The operation Albion introduction paragraph is probably longer than it needs to be; maybe use sentence 1,2, 5?
 * I cut it down a bit, see how it reads now.
 * The other 'fate' sections have a 'click for a larger view' in the caption. Kirk (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Added. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I just say I'm surprised you can't cite the namesake thing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Namesakes are almost never discussed in any references - for example, the search battleship "konig albert" namesake turns up zero results. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have also noticed that namesakes are often not discussed in secondary source - I think in this case it might be because it was common knowledge and its not important to historians to add the detail for modern readers in modern sources. Leaving it in uncited is probably better than leaving it out since I would assume the average reader would be like me and read the lead and immediately wonder "Who is König Albert?" Kirk (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding the namesake search, I looked for 'named' and I found this book which explains the naming system . Also, interestingly the author says that SMS König is named after King William II of Württemberg not the German Emperor as King of Prussia as it says in the article (also uncited :). Hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had found Rüger, but he doesn't make the connection explicit. I don't feel that the connection is likely to be challenged, however, and it should be fine as is. Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, just because Rüger is implicit instead of explicit which southern german royal this ship was named after doesn't make it a bad source, and its more explicit about others, I would start using it. For the record, I'm challenging that fact; and you regulars know its WP:Likely I will challenge your uncited facts in the infobox in pretty much every ship review I stumble upon.
 * Support - I enjoy this series, and this article meets the FA criteria. As far as the name stuff goes, Parsecboy's initial explanation made sense to me, and I defer to Dank opinion. Kirk (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments
 * I always cite the namesake if I can find it.
 * Link turret in the main body and infobox as well as all of the terms in the armor section of the infobox. Plus anti-aircraft gun, turbine, Schichau, boiler, shp in both places.
 * I've deleted the unnecessary bolding in the infobox. Otherwise up to your normal standard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Links added as suggested - as for the namesake, I haven't been able to find a citation for it. Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Support I think that the FA criteria are met here - great work. My only comment is to ask whether this was one of the ships whose crews mutinied at the end of the war; this should be clarified in the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, Nick - I've clarified what happened in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

support on prose; query: did I miss it, or is "dreadnought" not linked? Also, is there a convention that. The differing measures of tonnage are not linked? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Re naming; this book gives an interesting data point. --John (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John - if you look above, Grandiose and I already discussed that book. The problem is, Ruger doesn't explicitly connect the two, so it doesn't quite work. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugger, sorry to have wasted your time. I should have read the whole conversation. Sorry. --John (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all - thanks again for looking :) Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


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