Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Von der Tann


 * 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:SandyGeorgia 00:58, 7 October 2008.

SMS Von der Tann

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Von der Tann was the first German battlecruiser built before World War I, and the ship took part in most major fleet actions during the war. I've substantially expanded the article over the past few months. It passed GA in early July, was peer-reviewed shortly thereafter, and passed Wikiproject ACR slightly over a week ago. I look forward to any and all comments that will help to further improve the quality of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments I missed this at A-class review, so I've just given it a copyedit. I added nonbreaking spaces and reworked prose in a handful of places; I also changed the date formats in the infobox to agree with the format used throughout the article, and delinked a few dates. Some remaining issues: Overall the article is in great shape. The references look excellent (no work for Ealdgyth here!). Maralia (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I really dislike the use of TOClimit here. I understand wanting to make the TOC tidy (especially with such long section headers), but these are useful links. I wanted to go directly to her WWI service, but couldn't.
 * There are a lot of cases where you've used a unit of measure as an adjective ("38 cm gun") but not used the adjectival form ("38-cm gun").
 * On a related note, the convert templates present the units of measure in an orderly fashion, but there are so very many of them (nearly 100) that it seems to be affecting load time on the page. Can we make them plain text? I'll help.
 * The italicized note in the Jutland section (It should be noted that the times mentioned in this section are in CET...) breaks the 'third wall' by speaking directly to the reader. Why not (1) change that note to hidden text and (2) address it directly by adding a timezone to the first actual time?
 * I converted the WWIGermanShips template to use Navbox, for more consistent formatting with other navigational footers. Does the Von der Tann class battlecruiser template really add anything here, though?


 * Thanks for your comments and copyediting. I removed the TOClimit, and removed all of the convert templates in the text (only those in the infobox remain). The page is loading much faster now. As for the note that was in the Jutland section, I was never really happy with it as it was, I'm not sure why I didn't think to turn it into a footnote with a link to CET on the first mention of a specific time, but that's what I did here. Thanks for fixing up the WWIGermanShips, it looks much nicer now. As for the Von der Tann class battlecruiser, I'm thinking about deep-sixing it, the main reason I created it was to have consistency with Moltke class battlecruiser, Derfflinger class battlecruiser, etc. I won't be heart-broken to delete it.Thanks again for your comments and help. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've decided to axe the template; it's been deleted as well, as you can see. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - all my concerns have been addressed. Well done! Maralia (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. I might suggest using the ref group parameter to separate your explanatory footnotes from the purely sourcing footnotes. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not that familiar with the ref group, can you show me an example so I can do it? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I figured it out. Is it formatted properly? Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would probably put the pure sourcing footnotes in a ==Footnotes== and the explanatory notes in a ==Notes== section above the footnotes, but yes, you got them separated correctly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Taken care of. Thanks for your help in getting that issue squared away. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak support I'm doing some homework right now and do not have the nessicary time to check everything I need/want to before being able to support in full, but what I have seen so far I have liked. I will do a more thorough check a little bit later, schoolwork permitting. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * Might I recommend using a different prefix like, say, "Note" rather than "exp" for the discursive notes? Much better — Bellhalla (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite the name of its article, I don't care for the "Blohm + Voss" styling of the name of the builder. It looks a little too trademark-y for my tastes. "Blohm and Voss" works well and is a common way of referring to the builder in books I've read.
 * The conversion for the torpedo ranges are from km to miles rather than the expected nautical miles.
 * For compound adjectives (related to Maralia's comments above), WP:HYPHEN recommends against the use of a hyphen when a unit is abbreviated. So it should, for example, be either "28 cm (11 in) gun" or "28-centimetre (11 in) gun", but not "28-cm (11-in) gun". It also looks like there are quite a few hyphenated that should not be (but if you continue to use only the abbreviated forms, that will be taken care of when the hyphens are removed).
 * (As an aside, the server load/load time of pages with lots of templates, like convert, was discussed at that template's talk page (archive link) a while back.)
 * In the "Armour" section the thickness would read a lot more clearly as "80–120 mm (3.1–4.7 in)" rather than as how it is now. Convert has a range functionality built in to it, so you could use  to produce
 * In section "Peace-time" —shouldn't that be "Peacetime" or "Peace time", by the way?—the phrase "with the engines at full tilt" sounds a little colloquial for my tastes.
 * In section "Battle of Jutland" there's a sentence beginning "As the ship was no longer firing her main guns…". Since as can have differing meanings, I would suggest either because or while as a replacement, depending on what is meant. Also, the "During the battle" that leads the final sentence of this section seems superfluous given that the entire paragraph is a summary of the ship's actions during the battle.
 * The folks at Graphic Lab/Image workshop‎ might be able to make an SVG of the map in the article (in English, no less!). You might try posting a request there. (I found the graphists there to be most helpful in the past.)
 * The licensing of Image:SMS Mainz sinking (photo).jpg doesn't seem to match the author information. At the very least, I think the image ought to be PD in the US since published before 1923.
 * Overall, though, this article's very close. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed the explanatory notes, "Blohm + Voss" -> "Blohm and Voss", "mi" -> "nmi", removed the hyphens, fixed the armor thickness ranges, changed "full tilt" to "maximum output" and "As" to "Because", and opened a request to get the map SVG'd. As for the photo of Mainz sinking, this issue was raised at a deletion discussion slightly over a year ago. The author very likely is a member of the RN (the destroyer to the left is Commodore Keyes' flagship), so it's likely the license template is correct. However, because the author is unknown, Anonymous-EU may be appropriate. Parsecboy (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The image licensing doesn't bother me greatly since it seems to clearly be PD, but the description text needs to support the license (and vice versa). — Bellhalla (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed it to Anonymous-EU, as that seems to be the best option, given the information we have (i.e., very little ;-) ) Thanks again for your help. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In the lead, the writing is fundamentally very sound (excellent in places). It could do with a polish by someone new to it, but I'm pleased thus far. Here are examples from the lead that suggest the whole text needs a little loving care.
 * "speeds in excess of 27 knots." That's the language of a speeding fine. Since they weren't excessive speeds, why not "of more than"?
 * "Von der Tann was to be the workhorse of the High Seas Fleet Scouting Squadron"—OK, so already I'm thinking it was intended to be, but wasn't. We're left hanging. "was designed as"? (except I see that you've got that in the very next sentence)
 * Parentheses within parentheses: can you avoid by using dashes for the outside ones?
 * Lighter guns, but the comparison is of their length. Forgive me, I'm a non-expert.
 * "fleet's fate" doesn't sound good; perhaps "the fate of the fleet"? I hope Jbmurray isn't around; he'd disagree with me.
 * "the majority"—"most" is so much nicer (plain and short).
 * Remove comma after "1919"?
 * Remove "subsequently"? Tony   (talk)  10:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestions. I removed "to be" from the "Von der Tann was to be the workhorse of the High Seas Fleet Scouting Squadron" line, is that more in the direction you were thinking? The gun comparisons are diameters, perhaps a short explanatory note explaining to what the measurement is referring is in order? I added a short one, let me know if that makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I reviewed this article both at PR & ACR several months back. The article has only continued to improve since then. Cam (Chat) 21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.