Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Zähringen/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) 22:57, 19 January 2018.

SMS Zähringen

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This is another in my series of German battleship articles. This article is part of the sub-series of articles that were written back in 2010 or so and then recently revised and expanded with new sources.Zähringen served for over 40 years in three different navies (from Imperial, Weimar, and Nazi Germany), but had a fairly uneventful career nonetheless. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:SMS_Zähringen_01.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This auction site gives a date of 1912. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Indy beetle
All of my concerns were addressed in the A-class review. I support this article's promotion to FA class. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

 * No DABs
 * No overlinking
 * Link rammed, main battery, knots, squadron, Baltic Sea, torpedo, submarine, bomber, scuttled (all in the lede)
 * Done
 * Add Kaiserlich Marine in parenthesis after German Imperial Navy in the lede
 * Done
 * Link secondary armament, Kattegat, blockade, Skaggerak,
 * Done
 * Hyphenate twin gun turrets
 * Done
 * Move the links for North Sea and Danzig to the first occurrence
 * Fixed
 * Bornholm's Danish, how could German ships return there?
 * Good point - reworded
 * When did IV Squadron become VII Squadron? Or is this a typo?
 * That's the VII Division, which was half of the VI Squadron - clarified in the text
 * neither mistakes were repeated when
 * Not sure what you're asking for here.
 * Don't think that you've got the grammar in that sentence correct. AFAIK, should be "neither mistake was repeated..."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A little light on images; can you find any more out there on the intarwebs?
 * There are a few out there floating around (wrecksite has a couple of nice ones), but no sources, unfortunately.
 * Add a link to the Commons category.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges

 * Support, I was a part of the recent A-Class review, can find no more faults. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

 * All sources consistently formatted and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Vami

 * I advocate for the removal of ("His Majesty's Ship Zähringen") or the accompanying lower alpha note as they render eachother redundant. – Vami _IV✠  07:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Thanks, Vami. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I came back to this review and had a thought about having the full German and English names for the ship, feel free to remove or edit it. We're good here otherwise, I back this article's bid for FA. – Vami _IV✠  13:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from The ed17
Great work. A few comments.
 * "... but by 28 August, the ship's crew ..." - which ship's crew? Did the squadron never make it to the cruiser?
 * "The German Army requested naval assistance for its campaign against Russia ..." - when did they ask for the assistance? Is there a link to that campaign?
 * Any plan to add something about "These experiences affected the conversion of Hessen, and neither mistake was repeated when that vessel was converted in the mid-1930s" to SMS Hessen? ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: One image has alt text, the others don't. I think it should be one or the other for consistency. But that isn't worth delaying promotion over. Sarastro (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.