Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II/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 Colm 17:21, 29 March 2014.

SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Another German battleship article, this was the 2nd flagship of the High Seas Fleet (after the recently promoted SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm). She served extensively in the first decade of the 20th century, but was too old for much service during World War I; she spent the majority of the war as a floating headquarters for the commander of the HSF. For what it's worth, only one more article will be necessary to turn this current GT into the second-largest FT on Wikipedia (by only one article to this related topic). Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2014 (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) 16:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * Tell the reader that triple-expansion engines are steam engines
 * Done.
 * Give info about the 1-pdr guns in the main body, including caliber.
 * I'll get to this later today - I'm away from my library at the moment.
 * As far as I can tell, they were just machine guns - neither Groener nor Conway's is more specific.
 * Probably something like the 25 mm Nordenfelt machine cannon popular in the 1880s.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Convert 45 cm in the main body.
 * Done.
 * Move the conversion for 250 mm in the infobox to first use.
 * Fixed. Must have added the figure for the conning tower at a later date and wasn't paying attention.
 * Construction number is quite likely yard number.
 * Linked.
 * Don't know that "Admiral" needs to be italicized as it's the same in English and German.
 * Yeah, I wasn't sure about that - I figured it ought to parallel the other ranks, but I'll defer to your judgement if you (or others) think it doesn't need it.
 * What was changed during the major reconstruction in 1909?
 * This'll have to wait also.
 * Added details now.
 * Nothing else on this first reading; I'll take another stab at it in a few days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Images are all appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Check sourcing and consistency in the infobox - for example, I'm having trouble figuring out where you got the complement from, as it doesn't seem to match the figures in the article
 * Fixed.
 * How are you ordering your References section?
 * Poorly, apparently ;)
 * Location for Philbin?
 * Added.
 * Hildebrand should be identified as a non-English source and should use the English country abbreviation. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was using the ISO 3166 code - "GE" (presumably the English abbreviation) can be Georgia. Added the German language tag though. Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow for referencing, Nikki :) Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Support -- As I have a FAC open myself at the moment, I'm recusing myself from delegate duties here and there to review articles... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Support — I have reviewed this article before, great work. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think some of the expression was a bit clumsy and repetitive. Just as an example: "In January 1904, Kaiser Wilhelm II participated in a ten-day exercise in the Skagerrak, which lasted from 11 to 21 January" ("January" twice, and "ten-day" as well as the exact dates). Anyway, having copyedited I'm generally happy now with prose and readability, but of course let me know if I've misunderstood/broken anything. Outstanding query: I'm not sure I understand how a ship is "tactically" assigned to a squadron.
 * Basically, each eight-ship squadron was divided into two four-ship divisions, each with their own flagship (and the flagship of the first division usually was also the flagship of the squadron), but the fleet flagship did not usually function as one of the eight ships in a squadron. But for tactical purposes, the flagship was assigned to one of the squadrons. For instance, at Jutland, the flagship Friedrich der Grosse was tactically assigned to the III Squadron, but was not formally a member of the squadron (just to note, though there were only 7 ships in the squadron at the time, but this was because SMS König Albert was in dock at the time with engine troubles). Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think it'd be clearer in the article if you say it was "assigned for tactical purposes" rather than "tactically assigned", as the latter sounds like you might have meant "technically assigned" or even "tacitly assigned"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks again Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Structure, level of detail, and image licensing seem fine; I'll rely on Sturmvogel's nod as far as comprehensiveness goes, and Nikki re. sources.
 * Thanks for your review and copy-editing as always, Ian. All of your edits look good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have one comment to make, Grand Admiral, Großadmiral or Grossadmiral. I will probably never understand this but why use the German variant of the rank if it is not spelled correctly? In German it is Großadmiral not Grossadmiral. I have come to terms with the fact that English sources spell Friedrich der Große incorrectly. In this case we have an equivalent English term for the rank and the need for spelling it wrong in German is not given. My opinion, no further comment. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's a good point - when I wrote it I chose Grossadmiral to parallel Friedrich der Grosse, but I doubt the situations are the same (that is, English sources generally refer to them as Grand Admirals rather than use the German) and since the German ranks are used elsewhere, it makes sense to use the eszett here. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.