Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Pommern/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) 11:31, 23 February 2018.

SMS Pommern

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Another one of my articles on German battleships, this one was the only battleship of any type on either side to be sunk at the Battle of Jutland - her loss accounted for about a third of German deaths in the battle. I wrote the article and it passed a Milhist A-class review several years ago, but recently revamped it with new sources, and it has since had a GOCE copyedit. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review
Apart from ref 33 needing "pp." rather than "p.", all sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Tintor2
I don't see too many issues other than redlinks. They tend to be discouraged unless you can link to another Wikipedia that has such article. Also I would suggest merging the last paragraph due to its small length. Other than that I see no issues. Ping me or mention me once you are done. Also, if possible, there is another FAC that has been kind of dead and I would appreciate comments there. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red links are fine per WP:REDLINK, and there are only 2 links (one of which is linked to the de.wiki article. Merging the last sentence seems fine to me though. I'll try to look at that other FAC, but my time is somewhat limited (and I wouldn't worry too much about the FAC being dead - it's only been up for a few days, they usually run a month, minimum). Thanks, . Parsecboy (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Leaving my support. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda
Thank you for another good ship! Only minor points:
 * Pommern vs. Pomerania. In the lead, the state is introduced in English. In Service history we read Oberpräsident von Pommern. Would people know what the title means, Oberpräsident? (I didn't, - learned something.) Is the redirect meant to confirm that Pommern means Pomerania?
 * Thanks for the link - have added a translation from that article. And yes, it's a hopefully less clunky way of reinforcing that than just repeating the line in the introduction.
 * "The next year—1909—followed much the same pattern as in 1908." - somewhat redundant, that 1908 ;)
 * Good catch.
 * link Kattegat? and Skagerrak when mentioned first, not second?
 * Both done>

Battle of Jutland That's all, good luck! Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2 sentences in a row begin "As a result"
 * Removed the second one.
 * "Pommern could not make out a target in the darkness, though several of her sisters could. Despite this, their shooting was ineffective." - not sure what that means, especially what "this" means.
 * Reworded - see how it reads now.
 * Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your changes and comments, and the new article. The sentence in question is better, but now has a "but" and a "though", - think about it. But no reason though to hold up my support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford

 * Support There's not much to comment on as much has already been addressed, as above, and the article was in a good shape to begin with, having passed GA. The only lingering thing is that, as a less than 15K character article, it doesn't entirely comply with the MOS for WP:LEADLENGTH which says a lead of one to two paragraph is appropriate for an article of this size. That said, however, I believe this should be an IAR case as the lead is what I would expect to read in a print encyclopedia for this subject and this length is needed for an appropriate overview. Very nice job. Chetsford (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: Some images have alt text, others don't. For consistency, it should be one or the other. My personal preference is with; it is not part of the FA criteria but does perhaps demonstrate best practice. In any case, there is no need to delay promotion. Sarastro (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.