Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Königsberg (1905)/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2015.

SMS Königsberg (1905)

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Another German commerce raider from World War I, though one less famous (and less successful) than SMS Emden - this ship was eventually bottled up in the Rufiji River in German East Africa and sunk by British warships, though Königsberg's war was not yet over, her crew (and her guns) having gone to join von Lettow-Vorbeck's guerrilla campaign. I'd like to run this article on the main page on 11 July 2015, to mark the centenary of the ship's sinking. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Königsberg_class_cruiser_diagrams_Janes_1914.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cut the link and updated the dead-tree source citation. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 Comments Support by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC) more to follow. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The German cruiser then radioed the German steamer Zieten from heading to the Suez Canal where she would have been confiscated. seems clunky. Perhaps "Looff radioed the German steamer Zieten to warn her against using the Suez Canal, where she would have been confiscated."?
 * Yeah, that is a little rough - I like your wording.
 * whose officers also, why "also"? Had another ship mistaken her for a British cruiser?
 * Don't know ;)
 * When a British cruiser is mentioned, patrolling along the coast, Pegasus is then identified when the German ship attacks her. Could she not be identified as Pegasus in the preceding para? It just jars a bit.
 * See what I've added - what I was trying to get at was that the Germans didn't know which ship it was
 * what type of ship was Weymouth? A cruiser, but perhaps it could be rendered as "The cruisers Chatham, Dartmouth and Weymouth"?
 * A good point.
 * "Sopwiths"? Do we know what type?
 * Unfortunately not.
 * suggest Hyacinth intercepted Kronborg as she approached, and chased her to Manza Bay
 * A good idea.
 * through the Brandenburg Gate to celebrate them and their ship perhaps "through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin to celebrate their service and that of their ship."?
 * Sounds good to me.
 * no alt text for images (not an ACR requirement).
 * reflinks and dab checks ok
 * That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All good, supporting. Well done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie
Overall the article looks very sound; I expect to support once these minor issues are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The line drawing says it's of the Stettin class, not the Königsberg class, and doesn't include this ship. Presumably the naming convention has changed since then, but perhaps this should be mentioned, in the text or caption?
 * They don't call it "Jane's Frightening Slips" for nothing ;) I've added a note to the effect that it's a mistake.
 * "At the same time, Königsberg was again used": surely "at about this time" or something like that?
 * How about just "At this time"?
 * "two trips escorting the Kaiser to Helgoland on 9–13 March and to Britain from 8 to 27 May": since this is over a period of two years it's not clear if this is in 1910 or 1911.
 * Good catch - clarified now.
 * Any reason why you translate Korvettenkapitän but not Fregattenkapitän?
 * Nope - probably just forgot. Fixed now.
 * "the ship would likely have to coal at Zanzibar on Sundays": why Sundays?
 * The source doesn't go into his reasoning, but I'd assume based on the days the ship was present and the distance from Zanzibar to the delta.
 * "Lieutenant Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck requested as many crew members from the ship as possible for his guerrilla campaign": since you give the English name for his rank, and since the most recently mentioned ship is British, it's not immediately obvious that this is a German officer requesting men from the Königsberg.
 * A good point - added the German name for his rank and that the campaign was directed against the British.
 * Is there a link that could be put in for von Lettow-Vorbeck's guerilla campaign? Even a redlink would be helpful if it's notable enough to warrant an article.
 * It's linked in the following paragraph, but I suppose I can shift it up.
 * "Instead, Königsberg was trapped in the river by two cruisers and several smaller vessels": this is much less specific than the earlier mentions of the Chatham, Dartmouth, and Weymouth; is it in fact these same ships?
 * Farwell doesn't specify which ships, but Dartmouth had already left to reinforce Cape of Good Hope Station, so it'd just be Chatham and Weymouth, plus the miscellaneous smaller vessels in the area.
 * Interesting. This is one of those "logical deduction" things, I'd say, that in theory can be added without direct citations, if any reasonable editor would conclude the information is correct.  It sounds like it's really pretty definite that it's Chatham and Weymouth; can we say so in the article?  We could add a footnote mentioning Dartmouth's departure to explain the different list of ships. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I had forgotten that Hyacinth had returned to East Africa by this time, and Astraea would have been in the area as well, as she didn't leave until May. It's probable that the four cruisers rotated to allow for coaling, rest for the crews, etc. I think given the uncertainty, it's probably best to leave it as is. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a very minor point, so I'm supporting, but you might consider putting in a footnote letting the reader know why it's uncertain, in case they wonder, as I did. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest linking breech block.
 * A good idea.
 * Thanks Mike! Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D
This article is in excellent shape, and does a great job of balancing the various elements of this ship's career. I have the following comments and suggestions: Support My comments are now all addressed - nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Königsberg served with the High Seas Fleet in the reconnaissance force" could this be tweaked to "Königsberg served with the High Seas Fleet's reconnaissance force"
 * Sounds good to me.
 * Was Königsberg a standard type of light cruiser, or was she customised for colonial/tropical service? - information on why the ship was ordered would be useful here as well (eg, did she form an unremarkable part of the buildup/renewal of the German fleet, or was she intended to serve well away from Germany?)
 * The Germans built only one type of light cruiser, which was intended for service with the fleet and in the colonies - really, only the RN could afford to build separate types. But I feel like the minutae of warship design might be getting on too much of a tangent.
 * Can this be briefly stated? It's an interesting point given the ship's career (eg, it helps to explain her limited success as a raider in a remote area, and illustrates why her survival was such an impressive feat) Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How does this look?
 * It looks great Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "two trips escorting the Kaiser to Helgoland in 1910, on 9–13 March and to Britain from 8 to 27 May" - this is a bit confusing: could it be tweaked to something like "two trips escorting the Kaiser in 1910; the first to Helgoland on 9–13 March and the second to Britain from 8 to 27 May"?
 * Works for me.
 * "In early 1914, the high command decided to send Königsberg to German East Africa, where she would replace the current station ship, the old unprotected cruiser Geier" - did she receive any modifications for this service? (eg, improved ventilation, shade cloths, extra supply storage, etc)
 * Presumably so, but HRS doesn't mention anything about it.
 * OK Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Max Looff took command of the ship. The ship left Kiel" - the wording here is repetitive
 * Fixed.
 * "including landing soldiers and field guns along with the network of coast watchers and telegraph lines, were erected" - this wording is a bit awkward
 * See how it's worded now.
 * I've tweaked slightly, but it looks good Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "On 30 October, the cruiser Dartmouth located Königsberg and Somali in the Delta" - do we know how the Dartmouth achieved this? (could the German ships' superstructure be spotted from the sea?)
 * The line about Präsident should have been clearer - the documents the British captured made clear that the ship was in the Rufiji (or at least was the previous month). I'd assume they saw the masts, but Halpern isn't clear.
 * OK Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You could note that the ancient Australian light cruiser HMAS Pioneer also formed part of the "British" force which blockaded and attempted to attack Königsberg (see chapter IX of ) Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a line on Pioneer (and another cruiser that joined the blockade, Pyramus). Thanks Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference comments by Bollyjeff

 * You have different formats for the id numbers: most ISBN, but some ASIN, OCLC, or nothing. Make them as consistent as possible.
 * For whatever reason, Patience's book does not have an ISBN in Worldcat, and the 5th volume of Hildebrand et. al. does not appear in Worldcat either.
 * Please provide url links to the books in google books where possible. This will make it easier for someone to verify the sources.
 * I don't like to do this because Google Books entries come and go - just because they're viewable now does not mean that they will be in the future, and anyone who wants to check information can easily find them with the ISBN/OCLC numbers.
 * Why only the one author link?
 * Bennett's the only who who has an article, though Herwig probably ought to have one.
 * Why a separate further reading section?
 * Because those two books aren't used in the article, though they might be of interest to readers. Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Some of the details in the infobox, such as the design displacement, do not appear to be sourced
 * Fixed
 * Per MOS:FOOTERS, don't use semicolons to create pseudoheadings - use regular bold or regular heading markup
 * Fixed
 * What is the source for explanatory note 3?
 * Wilmott or Willmott?
 * Fixed.
 * Burt: "Annapolis,:"?
 * Cut the comma
 * Herwig: which Amherst?
 * New York, but does it matter? For the purposes of finding the source, the publication city is not useful, and I'd rather not mess with linking some locations and not others (for instance, would a link to London be particularly useful?).
 * Hildebrand et al should identify language
 * Added
 * Further reading should be alphabetized and should include OCLC numbers if available. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch, added OCLCs to both. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.