Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Oldenburg/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 User:GrahamColm 10:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC).

SMS Oldenburg

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Another article on a WWI-era German battleship, part of this Good Topic. This article has been waiting in the queue for a while, and has passed GA and A-class reviews some time ago. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the highest standards and exemplifies Wikipedia's best work. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2013 (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) 01:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this article at MILHIST ACR, have checked the subsequent edits and consider it currently meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support - I added the note about the burn rate to the article from the FA class article, looks good for promotion. Kirk (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I switched the 'sisters' link to go to the class article not the term sister ship.
 * After 1915 the boilers were modified to burn oil, which would be sprayed on the coal to increase its burn rate... the class article has an note for this which is missing which I think is necessary; a brief explanation why an increased burn rate was a good thing is probably fine.
 * I think the secondary battery needed links, so I used the class article's infobox format: 15 cm (5.9 in) SK L/45 guns, 8.8 cm (3.5 in) SK L/45
 * Infobox
 * Added namesake citation.
 * The note w/ citation is probably bettter dealt with by putting the crew in the prose and citing it there (the rest of the items were cited). Kirk (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check - mostly all OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided. 1 issue:
 * File:Scheer%27s_illustration_of_I_SG_disposition_16_Dec._1916_en.SVG - is a derivative of a file, that is licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0 by its creator User:Demoeconomist, so the new image should be under this license and Demoeconomist attributed as creator of the intermediary derivative. The PD-situation of the original work (all PD-tags incl. UK) can be mentioned in a second license section under "for the original" (optional). GermanJoe (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed - oddly, this image has gone through probably a dozen FACs (if not more) and no one noticed that until now (and oddly, neither did Demoeconomist when he uploaded it originally). Good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Added original PD-info aswell. GermanJoe (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know that template existed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Support I have reviewed at milhist A-class and have nothing to add now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited in the article - for example, the complement
 * Why wikilink NYC, particularly when Annapolis isn't linked? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You'd think that after this long, I'd have ironed out these kinds of things. Both fixed now, thanks for catching them, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.