Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Seydlitz


 * 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 Seydlitz

 * Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

I recently rewrote and greatly expanded the article, and it just passed GA. I think it's at or close to A, with maybe some minor copyediting to be done. I appreciate all comments towards ironing out the article, towards an eventual run at FAC. Thanks in advance! Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support This is a very good article which meets the criteria. My comments for further development are:
 * There's a bit too much repetition of Seydlitz, and the name of the ship is often repeated in adjacent sentences. This could be mixed up a bit by using words like 'she', 'her' and 'the ship'
 * Is there anything particularly remarkable about "Financial constraints meant that there would have to be a trade off between speed, battle capabilities, and displacement." - this is true for almost every warship ever produced, and so this sentence could be toned down
 * The 'World War I' section is good, but only covers the operations the ship was involved in. A para or two on what she did between these operations (eg, sit at anchor with occasional exercises and overhauls) would be good.
 * If you take the article to a FAC someone is bound to ask whether File:SMS Seydlitz 1916 1-350 .jpg is PD given that its a photo of a model (eg, is it a reproduction of an artwork or equivalent?). I personally don't care, but someone else will. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll get on fixing the repetition of "Seydlitz", perhaps tomorrow (which I guess is today, according to zulu time). For your second point: yes, I guess that's true, I'll take a look at that as well. Unfortunately, with the exception of the mine damage to the ship during the second Yarmouth operation (mainly because it delayed the sortie that resulted in Jutland), there is little available, at least in English language sources, that states what the ship was doing. Presumably, she was sitting around in Wilhelmshaven or Kiel, with the crew twiddling their thumbs, but I don't know if there's much value added in mentioning that after every operation. As for the photo, and I'm by no means an expert on copyright (especially the more complex stuff like photos of models), I think that if the uploader were to state that s/he was the creator of the model, then there wouldn't be an issue, even if models do fall under the reproduction of artwork restriction. But I'll leave that to the image people at FAC to decide for sure :) Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - (this version)
 * One disambig needs attention, and there are no external links, so no problem there!
 * The opening image needs to be moved here and deleted on Commons; NHC photos are only certainly in the public domain in the U.S. use the same templates as I did on File:Scharnhorst guns.jpg. This is assuming, of course, that you don't find info indicating that it was published prior to WWI. :-)
 * Same problem with File:Seydlitz in port.jpg, as there is no indication that M.L. Carstens was an employee of the federal government and took the photo as part of his official duties (though I also wonder how the ONI got their hands on it...)
 * Ditto with File:Seydlitz moored in harbor.jpg.
 * File:SMS Seydlitz mit Zeppelin.jpg is not a work of the federal government; according to the LOC, it is an "Illus. [from] The Illustrated London News, 1916 June 10, p. 739." So PD-1923 would work better. :P
 * Not sure on File:HMS Queen Mary Jutland.jpg; can't read German!
 * File:Seydlitz badly damaged.jpg looks good.
 * File:SMS Seydlitz damage.jpg has no proof that it is PD, but that can be left for FAC.
 * Whatever File:German battlecruisers steaming to Scapa.jpg is, it is not a work of the U.S. Navy or it would say something like "Official U.S. Navy Photograph". :)
 * Metric ton ought to be wikilinked in the opening sentence, no? Also, those hyphens look...odd. Are they wrong, or am I just imagining things?
 * Sources/references look good.
 * Can we get locations and OCLC's for all of your books by entering their ISBN's in place of the #'s here? worldcat.org/##########
 * Cheers Parsec, — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  22:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It took me a little while to get to this, but I've re-uploaded all of the images you noted back to en.wiki, with the appropriate license templates. As for the one of the ship after Jutland, if it will need to go, I can always upload one of these images and replace it.
 * Pardon my ignorance, but what is an OCLC? Thanks again, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, the images are good enough; I just wanted to hit the ones I knew what to do with. The others can be left to the good (and mush more knowledgeable) image reviewers at FAC.
 * I'll do it :P — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  14:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of that! Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  16:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Just two issues:
 * Please explain the bit about her being manned by the crew of York, that confuses me.
 * "A month later, the German Revolution began; it toppled the monarchy and led to the Armistice that ended the war.[72]" That was not a month after October 24, did you mean week?


 * An interesting read that actually taught me something, good luck at FAC. – Joe   N  20:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think I meant "next month", not "a month later", thanks for catching that :) I clarified that Yorck had just been withdrawn from active service, is that better now? Parsecboy (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, excellent. – Joe   N  21:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I couldn't find any issues with this well-written article.  Great work. Cla68 (talk) 07:30, 17 April 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.