Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Moltke (1910)


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 01:08, 4 March 2009.

SMS Moltke (1910)

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

I've been working on this article for some time now, and it just passed ACR over at WP:MILHIST/SHIPS. I believe it's at or close to FA, hence the nomination here. I greatly appreciate any comments and suggestions that will help improve the article. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support - a very nice article, may well switch to support once I have read through it completely--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Due to the strains being put on the Navy design staff" - "being put" is a little inelegant, is there a better way to phrase this?
 * Move the information about who the ship was named after from the last sentence of the first section to the first sentence of the second section where you discuss the launch, otherwise you repeat the same information twice.
 * Link Goeben in the main text as well as the lead.
 * The image of Moltke off Hampton Roads severely interferes with the heading below it. I know there is a preference for alternating images, but this should really be on the other side, otherwise it is hugely distracting for a reader.
 * "Goeben, needed replacement in the Mediterranean. Moltke was then scheduled to transfer to the Mediterranean, but this plan was interrupted by the outbreak of World War I" - uses Mediterranean too closely together, try to find another way to say one of them.
 * Use "Moltke" instead of "her" the first time the ship is mentioned in each section.
 * "raided the German destroyers" - you can't "raid" a destroyer in that way. Either "attacked the German destroyers" or "raided the Heligoland Bight".
 * "the arrival of the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron" - make it clear whose squadron it was (i.e. British).
 * 24 hour clocks usually have a 0 in front of single digit hours.
 * "and sank with great loss of life" - there weren't that many men aboard a D class submarine, I think great is overstating it here.
 * "On 26 August 1914, the German light cruiser Magdeburg ran aground in the Gulf of Finland" - this is an event out of sequence and should be written in the past tense ("had run aground").


 * Thanks for your comments, Jackyd. I think I've fixed everything you've pointed out. Let me know if the way I've rephrased the "Due to the strains being put on the Navy design staff" line is any better. Parsecboy (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * it would be nice (although by no means essential) to know the names of some of Moltke ' s commanding officers during her active service career - did any of them go on to have notable careers?
 * Can we have the full name (and a link if one is available) for Konteradmiral Eckermann? He sounds quite an important figure.
 * I've noticed that a number of ships and men that would otherwise be redlinks are delinked (i.e. the cruisers Hamburg and Munchen) I strongly recommend that these are created soon to fill the gaps and properly linked from this article.

With the above improvements, I am now happy to support this article at GA (for full disclosure, I think I peer reviewed this a while back).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do actually have a list of the commanding officers of the ship; as far as I know, none of them went on to "bigger and better things" after the war/into WWII. I can add the info, but what would be the best format?
 * As for Konteradmiral Eckermann, Tarrant doesn't give his first name. This indicates that his first name was Richard. It seems reliable enough, so I'll add his first name to the article.
 * I'm going through the article looking for things that should be linked, even if the article doesn't yet exist. Let me know if you see any that I miss. I do plan on eventually creating at least short articles on every German warship of the period, so someday all the links will be blue. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these. With the captains, I son't think they all need to be mentioned, but those who were otherwise notable, in command at major actions or for a lengthy period of time (say a year for a ship in service only nine years) should probably be mentioned in the text in the sequence in which they were in command, with their full name given. Good work on the "red links", if you are unhappy about linking them while the article is at FAC, its probably OK just to make a list somewhere (i.e. talk page). Its not essential that they are linked in the article text right now. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll work the commanders into the text. KzS von Karpf, the commander of the ship during Jutland, is already mentioned (and quoted) in the Jutland section. I'm ok with the red links; WP:REDLINK encourages red links to articles that will eventually be created. All of the ships will eventually be created, so it's no big deal, I think. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - superb. Cam (Chat) 05:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Significant image issues as follows: Key concerns: creation does not equate publishing, images on Commons might not be PD-US. Jappalang (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * File:SMS Moltke.JPG: what is the assurance that this is public domain (other pictures have sources, where did this come from)? Chief worry: the photo might be published only after 1923 (having remained in private collection till then), thus not qualifying for PD-1923 for storage on Wikipedia only.  The Great War Primary Documents Archive does not own the pictures and cannot guarantee its PD (it is just doing to the best of its abilities, like us).
 * File:Willy Stoewer Dogger Bank 1915.jpg: this does not qualify for hosting on Commons. It is not public domain in the US (Commons demand PD in US and country of source).  This was created by a German, which under German copyright laws, means that it will not be in public domain until 70 years after the author's death, and if he died only after 1925, the photo would not qualify for PD-US (also required on other rules) due to the 1996 cut-off required by the URAA.  Stoewer died in 1931, making this image public domain in Germany on 2001, which is 5 years past the 1996 cut-off by the URAA for PD-US.  Proof that this was published before 1923 should be supplied to avoid this.
 * File:SMS Moltke.jpg: doubtful hosting on Commons, similar issues to above. It is a German postcard, and the author is unknown.  The German Wikipedia has guidelines for anonymous works, giving a guideline of 100 years since creation.  Moltke, comissioned in 1910, would not allow this image to abide this guideline until 2011, which does not qualify for PD-US under the URAA.  No source given, no date of publishing either.
 * File:SMS Seydliz under construction.jpg: Große Kreuzer der Kaiserlichen Marine 1906-1918 is a 1995 book. Does it state the publishing date of this picture, or only about its creation?  A reviewer (unreliable by Wikipedia standards) states that the information was unpublished until now.  Was this picture published before 1923?


 * I was under the impression that images hosted on the GWPDA were fine to use on Wikipedia. As for Willy Stöwer, I don't understand why his works aren't in the public domain; he died in 1931, which was over 77 years ago. Both the US and EU have life of the author+70 for copyright protection. What am I missing? As for the third image, I've attempted to contact the uploader about other images s/he uploaded, but as far as I can tell, the user isn't active. I've removed the images until their status can be clarified. Parsecboy (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with Stöwer's works is a two-part problem. First off, uncertainty over the date of publishing means it might not qualify for PD-US under PD-1923.  Secondly, if we are trying to go by the work as a foreign PD, they are not PD-Germany until 70 years after his death.  That would be 2001 which would be fine, but the US has this URAA law that renews the copyright of foreign works on US soil (Public domain) on 1996.  Any works not in PD in its country of origin by then would have its US copyright extended.  One way to circumvent this is to prove that Stöwer's image in the article was published before 1923 (since it would be undoutably PD-US under that rule, and PD-Germany by 70 years past author's death).  Jappalang (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't make sense to me; does the life+70 law in the US only cover US citizens (i.e, does it not apply to Stöwer because he's a foreign national)? How long is the copyright extended for those works still within copyright in 1996? Parsecboy (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon me if I confused you, let me try to explain as best as I can.
 * For storage on Commons, image has to be in US public domain and Source of origin public domain.
 * Image enters German public domain on 2001 (1931 + 70). This is under the EU law respected by US.
 * Whether image also falls into US public domain depends on the year of publishing and the year it enters German public domain.
 * If it can be proven to be published before 1923, there is no issue. It would be in US public domain as well.
 * If not, then we would have to look at the year it enters German public domain. This is restricted by the URAA as pointed above.    The cut-off is January 1, 1996, which this image would still have been copyrighted in Germany then.  If the image was first published between 1923 and 1978, then the copyright is extended to the publishing year + 95 (2018–73).  If the image was first published later than 1978, then it is 70 years after the death of the author (which would make it PD-US for this case).
 * Since there is no verifiable year of publishing for this image, the problem is if it was first published after 1923 but before 1978. Jappalang (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The case is decidedly dodgy since the signature at the bottom right corner of Stöwer's work seems to be "192x" (cannot make out the last figure). Jappalang (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The four images were replaced by File:SMS Moltke Visiting New York 1912.jpg, which checks out fine. All images used in this article are now verifiably in the public domain.  Jappalang (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having a little patience with me :) That makes sense now. The last digit appears to be a 6, but I could be wrong. Here's a question: could the image be uploaded to en.wiki under PD-Germany or does it still need to be PD-US? Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, for storage on Wikipedia only, the image has to be PD-US. For foreign images, this usually means publishing before 1923; anything later than that and we would have to contend with the URAA...  Jappalang (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And because prints of his paintings can be bought and sold, that would invalidate any claim of fair-use. I guess we'll have to wait until 2073, unless something else turns up (but hey, I'll probably still be alive then; I'll only be nearly 90. I'll just add it back then). Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

*In section: Service record (Pre-war): What is KzS? Excuse my ignorance, my interest isn't piqued in history.
 * Support - with comments:
 * In section: Later operations: At 05:00 on 23 April 1918, the High Seas Fleet left harbor with the intention of intercepting one of the heavily escorted convoys - 5:00 UTC, or local time?  Ceran  thor 02:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, "KzS" is short "Kapitän zur See"; is there anything that should be done to make it more clear? For example, should I spell it out every time? All of the times are in CET; there's a note in the beginning of the Jutland section clarifying this (I thought that would be the most jarring to those who have read one of the far more common works from the British perspective. If you think it would be better to have it at the start of the service history, that's fine too). Parsecboy (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's okay, I just didn't see them 'cuz I skimmed. Struck.  Ceran  thor 14:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.
 * Tarrant 52	Multiple references are given the same name -- TRU  CO   02:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify this, please? I see three instances where Tarrant, p. 52 is cited, but everything appears normal to me. Parsecboy (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More than one different reference is called "Tarrant 52", so that should be fixed accordingly.-- TRU  CO   02:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't find what you're talking about. All 3 of the citations in Tarrant 52 are correct, and I don't see any duplicates. Parsecboy (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed it for you. (Reference formatting found up to speed.)-- TRU  CO   03:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see what you were talking about now. Parsecboy (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As with several other MilHist FACs, I'm unclear if hyphens are used correctly, and there is some prose that could use tightening, sample: During the design process, there were many weight increases due to the increase in the size of the citadel,  ... (increase, increase, ... )  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I fixed some of the hypens (and it looks like Maralia got the others) and reworded the sentence you pointed out. Is there anything else that needs work? Parsecboy (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support I've just given this a thorough copyedit and done some MOS cleanup (some hyphens and nonbreaking spaces). Minor quibbles: (1) why use the draught= parameter when the article uses American English throughout (including armor=)? and (2) why does the infobox give the armor in inches (mm) rather than the reverse order, as the other measurements are given? Maralia (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thorough copyedit, Maralia. I fixed the two minor issues you pointed out (I knew draft/draught was an WP:ENGVAR difference, but I didn't know which one was which). Parsecboy (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.