Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/König class battleship/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Karanacs 20:40, 25 August 2009 [1].

König class battleship

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Another one of my German battleship class articles. This has passed GA and MILHIST A-class review, and I think it's close to FA-quality. The comments and suggestions that will come during FAC will help me to iron out the last few problems the article may contain, so I look forward to seeing them. Thanks in advance to all who review the page. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - There is one problematic sentence in the lead. Otherwise, throughout the article, the following concerns.
  • The ships' hulls each contained 18 watertight compartments, and were equipped with a double bottom that ran for 88% of the length of the hull.[4] - General characteristics; rm "and were" and replace with each
  • It seems that many of the sentences begin with "the" in the beginning of the article, I'd encourage more variety. Another article you wrote does not have the same issue.
  • König's first salvos fell short of her target, and so she shifted her fire to the nearer Tiger. - Battle of Jutland; nearest Tiger, there are three cruisers
So, it's a conditional support until my small list of concerns is resolved. ceranthor 21:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to change the wording in the technical section of the article (what I assume you meant when you said the beginning of the article) - do you think it's better now? I also fixed the other two things you pointed out. Which sentence in the lead has issues? Thanks for your review, Ceranthor. Parsecboy (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full support. Glad to help out on an excellent article! ceranthor 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present but needs work. The alt text "A map showing the locations of German ships prior to scuttling" simply duplicates the caption, and worse, doesn't tell the visually impaired reader the overall pattern of these locations. Please reword it to avoid repetition, and to give useful info to the reader. The alt text "Schematics for this type of battleship" doesn't give useful information either: instead, it should briefly say what that image tells the reader (that the reader cannot already get from the caption). The alt text "The gun turrets of a battleship. A gray zeppelin flies overhead" pretty much just repeats its caption; please rephrase it to give useful info that's not in the caption. Please see WP:ALT #Difference from captions. Eubulides (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that most of the above problems were fixed; thanks. I tweaked the map's alt text to remove the remaining problems. Eubulides (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping with the last image. I'm still pretty shaky on alt text :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments yes, I too like this article very much. It's clear, well written, and engaging, and even the deluge of armament statistics, weight, etc., doesn't distract the reader. I have couple of comments, specifically, on this one paragraph: "German naval historian Erich Gröner, in his book German Warships 1815–1945, stated that the German navy considered the ships to be "very good sea-boats."[5] They suffered a slight loss of speed in a swell, and with the rudder hard over, the ships lost up to 66% speed and heeled over 8 degrees." Since this is an article about the Konig ships, not Erich Gröner, I suggest changing the opening sentence of this paragraph so that Gröner isn't the subject. Perhaps .."The König class ships suffered a slight loss of speed in a swell, etc. Despite this problem, the navy considered them to be good sea-boats. (and then cite your naval historian, but don't use him as the subject of a sentence in your text...or at the very least, "according to Erich Gröner, German navel historian.) Make sense? Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, in the GA review for SMS Blücher, it was pointed out that I needed to attribute the claim that the ship was a good sea boat, though perhaps I misunderstood what the reviewer meant (since the wording before his suggestion was just "Blücher was considered to be a good sea boat"). Perhaps just adding "by the German navy" would have been sufficient? Parsecboy (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support With one comment. The Propulsion section has four very short paragraphs. Is there a way to combine these into two short paragraphs? From an appearance pov the section looks like it's only partially completed. --Brad (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/König_class_battleship/archive1&oldid=1146693091"