Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Preussen (1903)/archive1

SMS Preussen (1903)

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This is another in the series of articles on German battleships built before World War I - like the others I've done recently, I wrote the article close to a decade ago and then substantially expanded it last year with the use of new sources. As was typical for German battleships of the era, Preussen was obsolescent at the start of the war and saw little activity. The ship was one of the few battleships Germany was permitted to retain after the war, but in this only to be converted into a mothership for minesweepers, since Germany was responsible for sweeping the rather extensive minefields that had been laid during the war. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed this in detail for at Milhist ACR in September, and have looked at the minimal changes since then. I consider it meets the FA criteria. I did notice that Citation bot changed the cite journal to cite book for Warship. You can revert this and add immediately after cite journal and it will stop the bot from doing this mildly annoying action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good idea - I don't know why Citation bot is screwing with references like this, but it is annoying. I've raised the issue on the bot's talk page, so we'll see what happens. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest adding alt text


 * File:SMS_Preussen_NH_46833.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the source, the print was dated 1907. Renard was a German commercial photographer whose work was frequently turned into postcards and such. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Any evidence that this one was? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but the NHHC asserts the images are PD in the US unless otherwise indicated, so we can safely assume that the 1907 date is the date of publication. Given Renard's activities, Germany is the probable country of origin. Parsecboy (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

 * The detailed dates in the lede strike me as redundant to the main body.
 * I generally like to include month and year so the reader gets a sense of when the ship was built
 * I dunno; the object is to generally inform the reader when the ship was built. I used satisfy that by telling them the decade or war until a reviewer wanted to specifically know what year the ship in question was completed. I think that's about the level of detail appropriate for a summary and see no real necessity for telling 'em what month as the only time that it might be useful would be if the ship did something significant early in the year. And it was significant, it would be worth specifically mentioning in the lede. But I tend to be a minimalist in this issue, so YMMV.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Link sortie
 * Done
 * Add # of engines to the infobox
 * Done
 * Don't need short ton conversions in the main body.
 * Fixed
 * What kind of machinery spaces?
 * Clarified
 * Were the torpedo tubes on the broadside?
 * Clarified
 * Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Support from Gerda
Thank you for another good one! I read the article and found nothing I want changed. alt-texts for images have already been mentioned. Consider, in the footnote, not only to say that Prussia is "Preussen" but also that there's no capital ß. As ships' names are allcaps, it's PREUSSEN even in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good idea, thanks Gerda. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Source review

 * Use "|lastauthoramp=y" to get the ampersands to match between your bibliography and cites.
 * Fixed, good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Otherwise everything's properly formatted and all sources are known to me as high-quality.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)