Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Jutland/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 14:33, 9 March 2008.

Review commentary

 * Notified: WP:GERMANY, WP:MILHIST, WP:MARITIME, WP:GERMIL, WWI task force, British Milhist task force, User:Gdr, User:Tirronan.

There are a number of concerns relating this article that have been brought up on WP:MARITIME and on the talk page of the article, with regards to how comprehensive and accurate this article is.( Criteria 1 (b) and (c) ). There are no inline citations at the moment. I also think that there is a problem with 2(b) in terms of section headings, eg the "Quotations" section. I think this needs a thorough review, something that could not be tackled on the talk page. Woody (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that my name is rattling around on this one but I would make the point that this article is mostly sound but in need to rewriting to meet FA status and the lack of inline citation is appalling.
 * Someone lifted tables from another work and proceeded to insert them without citing the source which would appear to me a copywrite violation.
 * Various issues are mentioned in brief without expansion and citation which did affect the battle, lack of Turret roof armor (armor suites being over taken by fire control ranges), over centralization of command in the Grand Fleet, Squadron commander's lack of iniative, basic torpedo tactics (no naval commander would head into a torpedo attack), the desperation of the High Seas Fleet to get away, ect.
 * No FA class article should be classed as such without through ciation and this is almost non existent. Tirronan (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes the outcome section either needs to be rewriten or removed as you have noted and there is enough missing or just wrong to rewrite the entire thing. I'd suggest that we compare notes on what books should be ordered to source from. I was in the middle of starting to order from Amazon when I noticed you were doing the same. I have Castles of Steel but that isn't enough for this article. Tirronan (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies Tirronan, I brought your name up in light of your contributions on the Jutland talk page. I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you on the mostly sound verdict-to wit; I'm gathering references now to make changes. It probably wont reach me before the 2 week review period is up, but I have a copy of the Jutland documentary on the way to me so as to see if some detail can be gleaned from it and then properly included into the text. I should mention that I have the Battle of Jutland: Official Despatches, Jellicoe's The Grand Fleet 1914-1916, Scheer's Germany's High Sea Fleet, Massie's books, Lambert's article (however useless I think it is) and access to Gordon, Corbett and Bacon, among many others. --Harlsbottom (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The premise of the German sortie is wrong. The original plan did include a raid on Sunderland, but also involved a sortie to the North.  The weather and lack of Zeppelin cover to the Northwest meant that the raid was scrapped on 30 May in favour of the Northern Operation, i.e. the advance to the Dogger Bank.  To say the article doesn't reflect this is an understatement.  The map with Sunderland on is therefore pointless.
 * There are large rambling sections on the Order of Battle and "Naval Tactics" which aren't very helpful at all. Most of the Order of Battle section could be put into a Technical section at the end and most of the Naval Tactics could be explained in the narrative.
 * A section on the leadership of the Fleets and Squadrons would be better, rather than the shortcut to the Admiral's pages which aren't much help really in explaining things.
 * "The Outcome" section is hopeless really. Quite apart from the fact it's disorganised, I feel there's a lot of technical issues there which have been either exagerrated or understated.  The whole section is far too Anglo-centric and doesn't give an adequate description of the outcome or the consequences.
 * Citations. I can see where some of the quotes have come from, but still it's going to be a pain in the backside to cite everything in there.  For example the Scheer quote near the beginning, which is both mis-quoted and uncited.  Not helpful at all.

--

Tirronan, thanks for the heads up. I actually disagree with FA and GA status anyway, since it seems to me that an article may be OK when assessed, but then it gets worse, or standards change. Until Wiki somehow controls article-entropy (Wiki Heat Death?) then FA and GA are at best snapshots. As to the article itself I actually thought this was a pretty good summary of the battle, possibly the most coherent and understandable narrative I have read, considering its length, and the maps etc are excellent. So, enough with the philososphy, yes, I'll try and help fix it up. Greg Locock (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), focus (4), and organization (2). Marskell (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove, as things stand. There is a lot of excellent material here and the subject certainly deserves an FA. However, it is well below current FA standards. Extensive citations will be needed. I think some parts of the article are quite unfocused and need editing down. I am glad to see people working on it but I think it will take several months' work to sort it out. The Land (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove - per 1c--Peter Andersen (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove, echoing The Land's comments. --Harlsbottom (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.