Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Kaiser Friedrich III/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2017.

SMS Kaiser Friedrich III

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Another one of my German battleship articles, this one accidentally helped make later German battleships more resistant to underwater damage. The article passed a MILHIST A-class review a couple of months ago. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2017 (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) 18:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Comments what design changes were recommended for the Deutschland-class battleship after the grounding? What defects were identified during the trials? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hildebrand doesn't say on either count, and the German sources I have that cover battleship development start with the dreadnoughts, unfortunately. The Deutschlands weren't exactly known for their resistance to underwater damage (witness Pommern at Jutland, while the dreadnoughts were, on the other hand, so it makes more sense to me that whatever changes that were recommended weren't actually incorporated into the Deutschland class. But that's just a hunch. Parsecboy (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, you can't go beyond what the sources say! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments  by Sturmvogel_66
 * Link cylindrical boilers, keel, rivet, squadron (the generic term), armored frigate, launched, Kaiser, commissioned, Netherlands, flagship, coastal defense ships, ironclad, drydock, Kaiser Wilhelm II (the ship), rammed, grounding on first use
 * Think I've got all of these
 * I fixed the one for cylindrical boilers for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Watch the rounding in your conversions: 45 cm doesn't equal 18 inches
 * Fixed
 * Link the guns, redlinks are acceptable
 * Done
 * received 150 mm (5.9 in) of armor Redundant conversion
 * Fixed
 * along with the aviso Hela comma after Hela
 * Done
 * Service as a flagship is probably worth adding to the lede
 * There's already a line about that
 * for excellent gunnery Perhaps "excellence in gunnery"?
 * Works for me
 * a United States squadron Awkward, howzabout "an American" squadron?
 * Done
 * Probably worth mentioning that she was disarmed and that her guns were, IIRC, used as railroad guns on the Western Front.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Added details on this, but according to Friedman sixteen of the twenty 24cm guns from the class were employed as coastal guns (the remainder kept as spares, I assume) - he doesn't specify which guns went where, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

image review
 * File:Die_Gartenlaube_(1887)_b_517.jpg: what is the creator's date of death?
 * It's unclear - the illustration has a signature, but I can't make it out. According to the caption, it's based on a photograph by a Th. Politzky, but I can't find anything about him. In any event, I've uploaded it locally, since it's undoubtedly PD in the US, and the border needed to be cropped anyway.
 * File:SMS_Kaiser_Wilhelm_II_after_refit.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also unclear, but according to the source, it was received by ONI in 1911, which indicates it was already in circulation by that point. Renard's photos were commonly printed as post cards, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, Prose is good, all images licensed correctly. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  12:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source review here, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Also,, what are the grounds for your support if you have not looked at the prose. It is helpful to specify which of the FA criteria your support covers. At the moment, I am inclined to disregard this as a drive-by support unless you can expand on your comment. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I went and read the text and didn't find any room for improvement, short of rewriting entire sections for minimal improvement. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  22:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comments Support by Euryalus (all very minor, apologies in advance if these seem nitpicky) Changed to support per the below.
 * Lead
 * Minor sentence structure suggestion: How about "Kaiser Friedrich III’’ was extensively modernized in 1908; her secondary ". Also, this modernization seems to mark the commencement of a new chapter in her service, so might it fit better as the opening sentence of the third paragraph rather than the closing one of the second?
 * That works for me.


 * Design:
 * Is there any way of explaining what a “Marine-type” boiler is, without that explanation overwhelming the section?
 * As I recall, they're just a type of boiler built by the Imperial shipyards - will have to check Gröner to see if he elaborates on that.
 * Thanks. No big deal.


 * There’ s a few paragraphs in a row that start with the name of the vessel. Perhaps change the opening of the second paragraph in Design to “The battleship”?
 * How about just "The ship"?

First paragraph:
 * Service History (Construction to 1900)
 * Forgive my ignorance, but what is the meaning of “construction number 22”?
 * It's the yard number - shipyards assign them to every ship they build.


 * “She was ordered under the contract name.." - was it normal for the contract name to be a placeholder? If not, do we know when she was renamed?
 * Yeah, it was standard at least for the German Navy to order ships either as replacements for out of date ships or as additions to the numerical strength of the fleet (since the number of ships was authorized by the Reichstag).


 * Do we know whether the three-shaft design that was of concern in the sea trials, was relevant to the subsequent rectification of defects? (removed, I see this was already asked above).


 * Second paragraph – wording is mildly confusing on first read through – sounds like she is escorting the Kaiser’s yacht and the aviso, and we only discover the Kaiser is also present when he is referred to at the sentence end. How about “sent to escort the Kaiser, aboard his yacht ‘’Hohenzollern’’ and accompanied by the aviso ‘’Hela’’, to visit his grandmother ..” or any similar phrasing?
 * How does "Kaiser Friedrich III and the aviso SMS Hela were sent to escort the Kaiser's yacht ''Hohenzollern" sound?
 * Better, but I've added a little to it directly in the article (see here). -- Euryalus (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Last sentence – no need for comma after “return”
 * Fixed.

First paragraph:
 * Service history (1901 grounding)
 * Suggest removing “the” before upcoming joint Army-Navy maneuvers”, because it implies we the reader already know about them.
 * Good catch.

Last paragraph
 * Would be interesting (but by no means essential) to know why the lightship was out of position.
 * Unfortunately Hildebrand et al. don't go into detail about the results of the investigation, and none of the contemporary reports I've seen do either.
 * OK, thanks for looking.

Last paragraph:
 * Service history (1902-1903)
 * Is “regatta” the right word? The wikilinked article suggests it is an event for sailing vessels or at best small powered craft, not battleships. Or have I misunderstood the role this vessel played, and “taking part” means something more ceremonial?
 * Yeah, basically the major navies liked to show off their newest ships at these big sailing events - is there some way you'd like to see that clarified?
 * In a moment of BRD I've changed "participated" to "were present at." Might be too passive, feel free to change to something else if preferred.

First paragraph:
 * Service history (1904-1914)
 * Sentence beginning “On 1 October …” seems a bit long. Any way to break this into two?
 * Yeah, that's a bit unwieldy - see if how I split it works.

A great article, thanks for the opportunity to read this through. All of the above are very minor, and from the view of a decided non-expert in twentieth century ships. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Overall
 * Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

 * No spot checks done
 * Need ampersands in the refs to match the format in the footnotes
 * Done
 * Gröner is volume 1 of a two-volume set.
 * Added
 * Subsection headers in the Notes section should be ordinary level 3 headers, not simply bolded.
 * Fixed.
 * What state or country is Annapolis in?
 * I've stopped putting state/country info, as I think the city is sufficient.
 * Comma after Washington
 * Fixed. Thanks Sturm.
 * References are known to me and are highly reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

comments

 * been a while since I reviewed a feature class article, and this is a pleasure to read.
 * Sentences like this: After the maneuvers ended, Kaiser Friedrich III was replaced as the deputy commander's flagship by Kaiser Wilhelm II, though she remained in the I Squadron. could also be worded After the maneuvers ended Kaiser Wilhelm II replaced Kaiser Friedrich III as the deputy commander's flagship....  Just is a little more active.  Presumably she was a more modern ship?
 * That sounds fine to me. My general thought was to keep Kaiser Friedrich III the center of the narrative, and so accepted a bit of passive voice as a result, but it's fine to go the other direction.
 * is "disembarked the landing force" considered correct? the landing force disembarked at....?  where the landing force disembarked? the landing force disembarked at...I think under those conditions it needs an object.
 * Changed to "...day, where the landing force disembarked. The ships then proceeded..."
 * continued on to.... repetitive. continued to...
 * Just to clarify, you mean remove the "on"?
 * yes, remove on.


 * 1901 grounding is the best section. Question about the men with injuries. Is it 3 men suffered serious injuries, one of whom died?
 * Yes, that's right - would it be clearer if stated that way?
 * yes. :)
 * here are some suggestions to tighten the prose. As always feel free to revert. I'm just thinking a few shorter sentences and a little less repetition.  auntieruth (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * then still being designed.... then still in design? then still under design?


 * Hmm, this I'm not so sure about.
 * same routine of training? You start the previous section with periodic maintenance...
 * How does adding "as in previous years" work?
 * do all years start with a training exercise? or is a training exercise just part of annual preparations?  is the beginning of the year in January (as in calendar year), or...? here are some suggestions.


 * Kaiser Friedrich III was assigned to the "hostile" force, and was first tasked with preventing the "German" squadron from passing through the Great Belt in the Baltic. was assigned, was first tasked....Assigned to the "hostile" force, KFIII first prevented and second...  Just seemed like there is an abundance of passive auxiliary verbs
 * I think I've fixed this now - have a look and see if that works.
 * I'll be happy to support this though! auntieruth (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review, Ruth! Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I think this is good for promotion now. If has any further points, these could be raised on the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.