Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Hindenburg


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SMS Hindenburg

 * Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Yes, another article from the German Imperial Navy. This one is short and sweet: the ship was only in commission for the last year of the war before she was interned and sunk at Scapa Flow, and as such saw no combat. Regardless of her largely inactive career, I think the article is close to A-class, so here we are. I appreciate any and all comments towards improving the article. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * No problems reported with alt text or external links. One disambig link needs to be located and if at all possible fixed.
 * I would consider removing the word dubious from the line concerning her being the last ship to sink at Scapa flow, that seems a little...iffy, for lack of a better word.
 * A word of advice from one contributor to another: when MBK and I made our push to get Illinois to FA status we encountered a lot - and I do mean a lot - of resistance because of the length of the article. If you intend to go to FA after this you may want to take into consideration the length bais, as I am sure someone will oppose on those grounds.
 * I think there was also some trouble for this with the Arena Active Protection System, can't remember who nominated that, but it ultimately passed. – Joe   N  00:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that was JonCatalan who wrote and nominated the Arena article. I recall reading through that FAC at the time (though I didn't end up commenting on it), and Sandy repeatedly reminded editors that there's no size requirement for FAs. I'd assume she'd do the same if that issue popped up again. Parsecboy (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tom. I removed "dubious" per your suggestion. Yeah, I know you guys had problems with Illinois at FAC, and I think the people who opposed the article then weren't as familiar with FA criteria as they might have thought. For a ship that saw no major action and was in service for only 1 year, I think this is pretty comprehensive, which is all the FA criteria requires. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I cannot support this article, since it makes such a basic mistake as to call a Battlecruiser a Dreadnought. This is a term which, rightly, only applies to battleships. I attempted to correct this slight, but Parsecboy stubbornly refuses to allow it to stand. Changed to support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have provided numerous sources on the talk page that use the term "dreadnought" to refer to battlecruisers; who is being stubborn? Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - for anyone who wants to review this detail further, see the discussion on the article's talk page here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It astounds me how you manage to get so much right about WWI-era warships' technical details, yet insist on being wrong regarding a simple matter of classification terminology. Just 3 little words, that's all I ask.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that you are unequivocally wrong in your assumption about to what the term "dreadnought" applies. I have provided a number of reliable sources that demonstrate the falsehood of your position, yet you dismiss them as "wrong." I don't know about anyone else, but I'd take the word of a 40-year veteran of the Royal Navy over yours. Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a type of guitar named after HMS Dreadnought also. By your same logic, we may as well call Hindenburg a guitar. Oh, and check my sources.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's quite a strawman, and a total distortion of my argument. I won't dignify it with further response. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's called facetiousness, but I can't expect you to know the difference.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Support I see nothing that fails to meet the criteria. R.D.H. has failed to provide cites for his definition, but Parsecboy has provided multiple instances supporting his usage. Good work. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just did. Do keep up with current events and check em out:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Good article, comprehensive because of the little action she saw. I made a minor clarificatio to a footnote, it said Seydlitz had resumed her duties, but the article never mentions a previous stint as flagship by Seydlitz. – Joe   N  00:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, Joe. Parsecboy (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I asked for 3 words but I'll settle for 2 since they are the right ones now. Good article! Cheers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Keep all this for the record: Note. Do you mind if this section is removed from "Fate": "Unaware that the deadline had been extended to the 23rd..."  Fremantle, as reported in Marder (From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow.  Volume V.  p. 277.) stated that he unofficially informed von Reuter of the extension of the deadline. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 22:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Herwig in Luxury Fleet explicitly states the opposite: Vice Admiral Sir Sydney Fremantle ordered the British naval forces guarding Scapa Flow out to sea for routine exercises without informing Reuter that the Armistice had been extended to 23 June by the Council of Four in Paris (page 256). I wonder what other sources have to say on the matter...Parsecboy (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bennet's Naval Battles of the First World War states The conflict between Fremantle's responsibilities and his orders was, however, seemingly resolved on the night of the 20th. He learned&mdash;and at once sent word to von Reuter&mdash;that the armistice was to be extended for 48 hours. Could be that Herwig is mistaken, or that von Reuter later claimed to have not known the armistice had been extended. Parsecboy (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only assume that Fremantle made the assertion in his published memoirs, My Naval Career: 1880-1928. Also, Marder corresponded with Fremantle towards the end of the latter's life.  Van der Vat (The Grand Scuttle.  p. 179.) writes "Fremantle always maintained afterwards that he had informed Reuter 'unofficially' of the extension before the scuttling".  At the very least Fremantle's claim is verifiable.  I'm assuming Herwig is simply repeating whatever von Reuter later said in justification.  --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 22:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking was the most likely scenario. Also, thanks for adding the line about her being deliberately sunk on an even keel, I hadn't seen that before. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At any rate, if the sentence I highlighted is removed (since it is evidently a matter of contention in the historical record) then I will Support, it being the only thing I can find fault with. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 23:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, I've removed the line from the text and placed the contradictory statements in a note. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Simon. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fear I've used too many asterisks ;). Thanks for the swift editing, and the explanatory note too. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 23:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support My issues have been addressed. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 15:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.