Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Wettin/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2018.

SMS Wettin

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Another entry in the battleships of Germany series, this ship had a fairly uneventful career, as far as these things go. Obsolescent by the outbreak of World War I, the ship spent the first year in the Baltic Sea but she saw no action against the Russian fleet. By late 1915, the Germans were having serious crew shortages, so older ships like Wettin were removed from active service to free up men for more important activities. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * "The exercises concluded on 12 September ... concluded": Avoid concluded ... concluded. You could drop this first sentence entirely if you like.
 * Cut most of the first sentence and merged the date into the preceding one.
 * "The squadron departed Vlissingen until 20 July, for a cruise in the northern North Sea with the rest of the fleet." I don't know what "until 20 July" means here.
 * That got changed by a copyedit during the A-class review - don't know why they did that.
 * "In consequence of the British visit, the 1905 autumn maneuvers were shortened considerably. It consisted of exercises in the North Sea from 6 to 13 September.": Something doesn't sound right.
 * See if how I reworded it works for you.
 * I took a stab at it. - Dank (push to talk)
 * That works even better. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * " ": Either a stub or a red link would work, preferably a stub. Same goes for Schilksee.
 * Is there a reason not to use the interlanguage link?
 * Would you rather have that discussion in this review or somewhere else? - Dank (push to talk)
 * I've created stubs for both locations. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from PM
I reviewed this at Milhist A-Class earlier this year and had precious little to quibble about then. A few comments: That's me done. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Imperial Diet as a translation of Reichstag doesn't work for me, I would have thought parliament was the common term? You use parliament later.
 * I used the translation used in Reichstag (German Empire)
 * link ceremonial ship launching
 * Done
 * "The squadron departed Vlissingen until 20 July"? on?
 * Fixed above, per Dan's comment - this was something that got garbled during a copyedit.
 * drop the comma from "cruiser, Danzig"
 * Fixed.
 * Thanks PM! Parsecboy (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review
All the sources are of high quality and reliable, standard reference works on German WWI and WWII warships. No formatting issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:SMS Wettin NH 47897.jpg - looks good, though the caption does not use a hyphen for Wittelsbach class when the main article does. Also, does line drawing need a hyphen? "Line-drawing of the Wittelsbach class"
 * I think you're referring to the hyphen for the image below, not this one. The hyphen is used when "Wittelsbach" and "class" form a compound adjective (meaning, "Wittelsbach-class" is an adjective that describes "battleship"), not when "Wittelsbach" is an adjective describing the noun "class". Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * English is a tricky one. You are right, I meant for the below, and sounds good. Thanks.  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * File:Wittelsbach class linedrawing.png - what is the source country and reason that this cannot be PD there?
 * Brassey's was published in the UK, and we'd need to know the name of the illustrator and when he died to know it's PD there. Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you include the page number in the source? Just wanted to do a sanity check that the illustrator is unknown. Used up all my phone data trying to find it (my fault).  Kees08  (Talk)  
 * It's there already - Plate 40 - Brassey's doesn't number the line-drawing pages in sequence with the rest of the work. They're in the end of Section II (after page 345). Parsecboy (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Europe 1911.jpg - looks good

Let me know on the second one.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, would you be able to add alt text? Thanks!  Kees08  (Talk)   06:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1
Lead, criterion 1a: To start with, audit comma usage (your writing needs to focus on this ... look at sentence lengths and existing density of commas ... look at the rhythm ... say it in your mind's voice ... ensure no ambiguity whatever your comma choices). Less of a problem, but do check your back-refs are unambiguous (she, it, which, they, her, them, etc). Topic is a bit grey (this happened, then that happened, then ...), and almost bereft of any personal aspect ... or drama. I suppose the sources don't provide scope for that, and it's not an FAC criterion.
 * "She was built by Schichau Seebeckwerft, in Danzig."—Such a short sentence: is the comma necessary?
 * No, removed
 * "Wettin was laid down in October 1899, and completed October 1902."—Elliding "was" doesn't work here: "and Wettin completed ..." was my first parsing, and I had to reverse back then. Again, is the comma necessary?
 * I have repeatedly been told that repeating the helping verb in constructions like this was not necessary (or had other copyeditors remove it, as with Dan in another article), and now you're telling me the opposite.
 * Don't you see the momentary ambiguity? I spelt it out above. It's not a "helping" verb. You need to insert it. Tony (talk)  02:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Her sister ships were Wittelsbach, Zähringen, Schwaben and Mecklenburg. They were the first capital ships built under the Navy Law of 1898. The ship was armed with a main battery of four 24 cm (9.4 in) guns and had a top speed of 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)."—Let's take advantage of the nice short sentences to merge two: "Her sister ships—Wittelsbach, Zähringen, Schwaben and Mecklenburg—were the first capital ships built under the Navy Law of 1898. The ship was armed with a main battery of four 24 cm (9.4 in) guns and had a top speed of 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)." You just mentioned four ships. Which one is "The ship" in the last sentence?
 * Done, that works for me.
 * "the majority of her career"—you're not counting numbers here, so why not "most of"?
 * Works for me.
 * "The training exercises conducted during this period provided ..." — this period is "most of her career", is it? And I presume that "most of" is co-extensive with the "extensive annual training". Given that, why not just: "The training exercises provided ..."?
 * Sure
 * "The ship was decommissioned in June 1911 as newer dreadnought battleships began to enter service but was reactivated for duty as a gunnery training ship between ..." — I'm not an expert, so you're writing for my type. I suddenly thought "newer" meant that Wettin was a dreadnought. You see the problem? It was a "pre-dreadnought", I had to cast back to see at the top. Would it work without "newer"?
 * I suppose, though I don't read it that way.
 * Obviously you didn't "read it that way", or you'd not have written it thus. You need to write for readers, not yourself. Tony (talk)  02:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "By late 1915, crew shortages and the threat from British submarines forced the Kaiserliche Marine to withdraw older battleships, like Wettin, from active service." The sentence isn't so long that you're looking for optional comma opportunities. Would it flow more smoothly without them?
 * Those were introduced during a copyedit by another editor. I preferred it without them, TBH.
 * "The ship was stricken from the navy list"—should it be "struck"?
 * I think "stricken" is correct in this sense - see, for instance, this. It's also commonly used, for example here, here, and here.
 * I'm done fighting MilHist about the use of the female for ships, so I'll have to endure this. But it's THICK with "she" and "her". Any opportunities to substitute with "Wettin", "the ship", etc would be welcome. Here's one ... I've substituted the first word and ellided the second "she": "Wettin saw limited duty in the Baltic Sea, including the Battle of the Gulf of Riga in August 1915, though saw no combat with Russian forces." Concerning that sentence: it's pulling in opposite directions: "limited", then "including"—I don't know how to fix it, or whether it's possible, so no big deal. Do you feel that positive–negative tension too?
 * See if how I reworded that works for you.

Is the rest of the text better-written than the lead? I'm not happy with this. You're a significant editor in this field, so I'd like to see you attend to some technical things in your writing. Tony (talk)  14:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When I rewrote the article, I didn't pay enough attention to the lead - I should hope the rest is better. I'd suggest that some of the things you're pointing out here are subjective (seeing as other copy-editors disagree - as is apparently the case with your second point - not to mention the comma issue, which was to some extent introduced during the copy-edit that was done as part of the Milhist A-class review). I suspect we won't always all be happy with a given piece of prose, but I do appreciate your help in tightening things up. Parsecboy (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "I'd suggest that some of the things you're pointing out here are subjective"—playing reviewers and people you call "copy-editors" off against each other never works well. It's a put-down. I point out technical issues, so I doin't react well being told that it's just my opinion. I'm not supporting at the moment. Tony (talk)  02:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not playing reviewers off each other, I'm just pointing out that you appear to be criticizing based on your own opinions. You think one thing, others think other things – that's life, move on. And for someone complaining about put-downs and not reacting well to being told something is just your opinion, I suggest you re-read some of the things you've said in this review. I've been writing FAs for a decade, I don't need condescending lectures. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Everything that drops from my lips is my opinion. Goodness, this is like the old days, 2005–07, when nominators were routinely rude to reviewers. I see you're an admin, which suggests that you're used to pushing editors around and getting away with it. And clearly you don't like criticism of your writing. Please don't bring that behaviour here. Let's do some spot-checks a little further down, where you claim to have paid more "attention" to the writing.
 * "After the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) ordered the four Brandenburg-class battleships in 1889, a combination of budgetary constraints, opposition in the Reichstag (Imperial Diet), and a lack of a coherent fleet plan delayed the acquisition of further battleships."—It's a long, winding sentence. Consider dropping "the" before "acquisition", which would trim just a little and work nicely.
 * "The law authorized the last two ships of the class, as well as the five ships of the Wittelsbach class, the first class of battleship built under Tirpitz's tenure."—authorized what? Their launching? Their crewing? Their design? Their funding? Their construction? "Built" occurs late and doesn't really clarify what the first proposition is about. The specs are well-handled.
 * "under construction number 676. She was ordered under the contract name "D", as a new unit for the fleet."—I hope this means something to all naval historians, and isn't jargon imported from early-20th-century Germany that is rather exclusive. It could almost be footnoted, but that's up to you.
 * Another possible simplification (please look for these opportunities throughout): "In August 1902, a crew of 60 men took the ship to Kiel for sea trials, which were supervised by KAdm Hunold von Ahlefeld."
 * "concluded with cruises"—c c ... consider the simpler, more germanic "ended with cruises".
 * "while the other units went to other ports"—I can't see how to avoid other other. But you might have a way.
 * Caption: "Map of the North and Baltic Seas in 1911". We might write that in 2050 after climate change has raised sea levels, but not at this time.

Oppose for 1a. To make it worse, the nominator is continually rude and appears to be unwilling to cooperate on improving the prose. Tony (talk)  02:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? I don't think further interaction here is going to be productive. Parsecboy (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you take your staggering lack of self-awareness somewhere else? I'm rather unhappy that this FAC has gotten derailed by your seeming inability to interact in a collegial manner. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Guys can we try and take things down a notch? Nate, I value Tony's recent re-engagement with the FAC process -- we've all probably become a little complacent in our writing because editors with his eye for detail haven't routinely been reviewing our noms, so the way he challenges us on prose can be a shock to the system. It's not meant to be personal -- I've talked to Tony at several meet-ups and it's not his way. I include myself when it comes to possible complacency, and I look forward (albeit with a certain trepidation!) to him giving my prose the once-over next time I nominate an article here. BTW Tony, I've worked with Parsecboy since forever at MilHist, and I've never seen him unduly throw his weight around as an admin. I hope we can just focus on article assessment and improvement, which is why we're here. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with my writing being challenged - what I do have a problem with is someone complaining about me being "continually rude" (when I haven't been) while at the same time being incredibly condescending and insulting. If Tony wants to collapse all this and start over, I'm fine with that. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is you don't seem to realise how not to annoy (and insult) reviewers; some introspection would be helpful, but I don't want to know about it. To turn the tables, I don't like to see such a skilled Wikipedian who has worked so hard on a piece feeling upset—that is contrary to the purpose of the FAC process. Your contributions to milhist are admirable. Tony (talk)  07:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Clikity's support
 Weak Support: The article meets the criteria. The prose is okay for FA right now, but it will need a bit of a cleanup later. The prose is okay for FA, but it's not very engaging. It effectively communicates what you need to say in the article, but it has room for improvement. Clikity (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that it's OK. But I don't understand: if it will need a clean-up later, it's not OK now. Tony (talk)  07:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

 * I was one of the reviewers at A class, so let's see what strikes me now.
 * Suggest deleting German in the opening sentence and adding Imperial German Navy in parentheses after Kaiserliche Marine
 * See how it's worded now. I don't like to translate "Kaiserliche Marine" as "Imperial German Navy" since that's not strictly accurate.
 * That's fine as well as more technically accurate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not gonna get into comma usage here as I'm still not entirely sure what's what.
 * the ship was mobilized with her sisters as IV Battle Squadron Perhaps, "the Wittlesbach-class ships were mobilized and designated as IV Battle Squadron"
 * Done
 * Link Baltic Sea, training ship on first use.
 * Done
 * went on one major operation being the Awkward, perhaps simply "played a minor role in..."
 * Done
 * Gotta run, more in a bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Russian battleship, Slava No comma here
 * Fixed - I need to go back through the copyedit done at Milhist and look at commas that were inserted there.
 * Link Riga on first use--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  11:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.