Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [1].

Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a planned class of German battlecruiser that was cancelled late in World War I - they were originally to have been Mackensen-class battlecruisers, but were redesigned in response to the latest British Renown-class battlecruisers. Never built due to Germany's shifting industrial priorities, they nevertheless provided the starting point when the German Navy began work on what became the Scharnhorst class in the mid-1930s. This article was thoroughly overhauled earlier this year and passed a Milhist A-class review in February, so it should be in good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • governed the building program of the German navy during World War I Link the German Navy I also believe navy should be capitalised.
    • Done
  • had a displacement of 34,000 to 38,000 metric tons (33,000 to 37,000 long tons) Link tonnes and long tons.
    • Done
  • estimated to have been able to steam for 5,500 nautical miles (10,200 km; 6,300 mi) Link nmi.
    • Done
  • largely been diverted to support the U-boat campaign U-boat campaign is a proper noun.
    • Fixed
  • a concept Wilhlem II had been pushing for years Typo here.
    • Good catch
  • denotes that the gun quick firing Quick firing needs a hyphen.
    • I don't think it does there - you generally only hyphenate when the two words form a compound adjective that directly describes a noun (the same as "X class" vs "X-class ship")
  • in four Drh LC/1913 twin gun turrets; this was identical to the main armament Twin gun needs a hyphen.
    • Fixed
  • Link long tons, tonnes and full load in the infobox.
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Llammakey

[edit]
  • battlecruiser should be linked at its first appearance in the first paragraph of development
    • Good catch
  • The improved field of view statement after the trunked funnels in the first paragraph of the design section is unclear if you mean the conning tower or the mast, especially since you just spoke about the spotting tops.
    • The mast - hopefully clearer now
  • I would hyphenate single ended and double ended boilers
    • Fixed
  • In armor, link Derfflinger-class ships
No problem. Changed to support. Llammakey (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Tirronan

[edit]
  • No mention of horizontal protection even the lack of such should be mentioned, otherwise I have no issues.

Image review

[edit]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

Unfortunately this is nearing the one-month mark and hasn't seen much attention overall. I've added it to the Urgents list but otherwise it will be archived in the coming days. --Laser brain (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left a couple of notes on relevant wikiprojects - hopefully that can drum up a few reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]

Note: I am participating in the WikiCup.

  • {{lang}} for Kaiserliche Marine, rather than just italics please. (Check for later examples too, I spotted Reichsmarineamt, Grossadmiral, Vizeadmiral, grosskampfschiff Konteradmiral.)
    • Ugh, I still need to go through and fix a lot of articles with this problem - they should all be fixed here
  • "..the Mackensens, ..." Is it really right to not italicise the plural 's' here? It looks very odd.
    • You can do it either way - I've tended to see the non-italicized variant, so that's what I've used (see for instance here)
  • "..of the three to have construction begin," This sounds a little laboured to me; maybe "..of the three to have begun construction,"?
    • Works for me
  • "..were initially to have been members of the Mackensen class, and initial funding.." close repetition of "initial".
    • The first "initially" can probably just go
  • "..that hewed closer.." "hewed" is quite an AmEng-centric term. While I appreciate that this article is written in AmEng, is there a more accessible word that can be used?
    • Reworded
  • "Capelle stated that the last three Mackensens—Ersatz Yorck, Ersatz Scharnhorst, and Ersatz Gneisenau—and Ersatz Friedrich Carl if work had not proceeded too far along, and that they should be reordered as a completely new design, GK6, which he submitted." This doesn't seem to make grammatical sense to me? Possibly remove "and that they"?
    • Probably something that got rewritten once too many times
  • "Since the ships' propulsion system.." This might be an ENGVAR thing, but shouldn't "propulsion system" be pluralised here?
    • Good catch
  • "After 1917, work on the ship only took place in order to keep dockyard workers occupied.[2] The ships were never built, primarily because the shipyard capacity available that late in the war.." This feels like a contradiction: the first sentence says they worked on it, essentially, because they had nothing better to do, while the second sentence suggest there wasn't enough capacity to work on it?
    • I can see how you got there if you're only considering manpower, but there were a couple of things going on. The shipyard facilities could only build so many vessels at a time, since there were only so many slipways. And completing the hull would allow the yard to launch it, thus clearing the slipway for other projects There were also only so many support structures (which is to say, the subsidiary production organization that included the workshops that assembled ships' engines, armor plate factories, etc.) - so if, for example, Krupp doesn't have the production capacity to complete guns for these ships on top of the colossal demands the German Army at that point in the war, the ship won't be completed, regardless of whether everything else in the logistical chain would support it.
  • "GK3021 and GK3022 types" What are these?
    • Other latewar design studies, two of quite a few - I don't know that a separate article is worthwhile on them since they were purely academic, with no realistic proposition of being built.
  • "..the design formed the starting point for the design work.." The second "design" probably isn't needed.
    • Agreed
  • One thing I found a bit confusing was that in the Development section, is states "Capelle stated that the last three Mackensens—Ersatz Yorck, Ersatz Scharnhorst, and Ersatz Gneisenau—and Ersatz Friedrich Carl if work had not proceeded too far along". This is the only mention of Ersatz Friedrich Carl, I assume it just never got ordered at all?
    • It's somewhat common to have conflicting names for ships that weren't built - I think Staff is referring to one of the four Mackensens as Ersatz Friedrich Carl, but I don't have the book at hand to confirm. Groner refers to the last Mackensen as "Ersatz A", which doesn't comport with German contract naming practices. I'll check with Staff later today.
      • If there is some information which could go in a clarifying footnote, that would be ideal. Harrias talk 11:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Staff refers to the fourth Mackensen as "A/Ersatz Friedrich Carl", which makes sense to me. The Germans ordered their ships either as replacements for older vessels (so Ersatz [ship name]) or as additions to the fleet's numerical strength (denoted with a single letter) - combining the two as "Ersatz A" doesn't make sense - I can only assume it was a typographical error or something. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I see. Reading Mackensen-class battlecruiser (which refers to it as Ersatz A), it makes a bit more sense. Could something be noted that Ersatz Friedrich Carl/Ersatz A/Fürst Bismarck was not modified as an Ersatz Yorck class, and that she was cancelled as a Mackensen-class battlecruiser? Otherwise, people are going to be left wondering. Harrias talk 14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's a good idea - and as an aside, I need to go back and update the Mackensen article with Staff and Dodson (but that's a lengthy backlog and there are a lot of older FAs that need more significant work!) Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • As another aside I went back and looked at Groner, and on page 57, he refers to the vessel as "Ersatz Friedrich Carl (A)" and then on page 58 as "Ersatz A", which seems to be a mistake. Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very interesting, and only really minor fixes: nice work. Harrias talk 15:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, more than happy to support this. Harrias talk 08:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by From Hill To Shore

[edit]

This is my first time participating in FA, so feel free to make liberal use of WP:TROUT if I overstep.

  • Is there a reason why we translate Grossadmiral and Vizeadmiral but not Konteradmiral? I don't know the literal translation but our articles seem to compare it to rear admiral.
    • Nope - an oversight on my part
  • Is the following the correct word usage? I have not had to talk about increasing displacement before but this doesn't parse well to my layman's eyes. the bulk of the displace growth
    • Should have been "displacement"
  • Following changes above, you are now referring to plural ships and plural systems. Should it be "they were" here? Since the ships' propulsion systems had already been ordered, it was kept
    • Good catch
  • In the General characteristics section there is a second reference to metric tons. All other mentions in the article after the first one just use t. I am guessing that it is an oversight but happy to consider if there is a reason for it.
    • They should all be standardized now
  • Again in the General characteristics section, there is a comparison between "standard weight" and "full load." As the previously linked Displacement (ship) gives a definition for full load, there is an implication that we are using "standard" displacement as the comparison. However, the second term wasn't defined until 1922. Is there some other definition for "standard weight"? Either a link or a footnote to clarify whether we are using an anachronistic comparison would be useful.
    • Changed to "designed" to avoid confusion
  • Armament section: The 15 cm and 8.8 cm guns use the conversion template and link to their respective articles. Is there a reason why the 38 cm ones don't have either the link or conversion template? The 38 cm guns are linked in the infobox but I couldn't spot another link in the article.
    • The 38cm figure is converted earlier in the article, so it doesn't need to be repeated. Added a link
  • Armament section: is there a reason why the footnote directly follows the word "guns"? I may be thinking of an old MOS rule I read many years ago but I thought that references and footnotes should follow the next punctuation mark, in this case the semi-colon.
    • Fixed
  • I can't find an article about Drh LC/1913 twin-gun turrets but shouldn't we link to Gun turret? The link is in the infobox but this is the first appearance in the prose and I expect that some readers would want to know more about Drh LC turrets. Alternatively, a redirect from Drh LC/1913 to the Gun turrets article may be preferred. It not only links the unusual term to a more descriptive article but flags up through "what links here" that we need to add some detail on German turrets to the target article.
    • Linked to gun turret - I may at some point get around to developing the related gun articles, which is probably the best place to discuss specific turret types.
  • a common practice for German naval weapons later during the war. This might just be my personal taste, so feel free to disagree, but the use of "later" there doesn't look right. I'd normally use, "during the latter part of the war."
    • That works for me
  • Armament section: the first paragraph makes a comparison to the Bayern-class, making the following sentences a little confusing as to whether we are talking about the intended design of the Ersatz Yorck-class or the practical implementation on the Bayern-class. I suspect that a mixture of the two is used. It may be beneficial to separate out descriptions of the design and descriptions of the implementation into separate paragraphs.
    • They were the same - both classes received (or would have received) the same Drh LC/1913 turrets - I don't really see a benefit to splitting the paragraph, as the performance of the guns and shells wouldn't have changed between the two classes
      • The key problem I have with the paragraph is that we switch from were to be in the first sentence (subjunctive) to were, originally allowed and had (definite) in the rest of the paragraph. It just doesn't flow quite right for me. It isn't clear on reading whether we are referring to the design of the Ersatz Yorck or the implementation on the Bayern. Perhaps instead of The turrets were arranged in two superfiring pairs, one forward and the other aft. we could say In both designs the turrets were arranged in two superfiring pairs, one forward and the other aft. That should probably correct the flow as it indicates that we are still talking about the subjunctive Ersatz Yorck but also bridges to the definite in relation to Bayern. We then come back to Ersatz Yorck in the discussion of ammunition.
        • That works for me.
  • Armament section: we refer to the H8 torpedo. There doesn't seem to be an article at the moment but there are some specifications for it at List of torpedoes by name. Is it worth adding a link to there?
    • I think a redlink is in order - another editor has been working on a lot of the gun and torpedo articles, and will likely get to it at some point (or I will)
  • This may be a result of my ignorance of FA, but is there a reason why some measurements use the conversion template and others are included with manual conversions? I've not checked any of the manual ones to see if the correct values have been used.
    • Not really - I originally wrote this article more than a decade ago and didn't use the templates - apparently not all of them were redone in the rewrites since then
      • I've gone ahead and implemented the auto-conversion wherever a manual conversion was in the article. I think I caught them all. There were some changes to the converted numbers; some were due to rounding while others were more substantial (possibly indicating an error in the manual calculation). From Hill To Shore (talk)

I've only read up to the Armament section so far but will return to this tomorrow. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:
  • Armor section: the sides were 300 mm thick and the roof was 130 mm (5.1 in) thick. The rear conning tower was less well armored; its sides were only 200 mm (7.9 in) thick and the roof was covered with 50 mm (2 in) of armor plate. The main battery gun turrets were also heavily armored: the turret sides were 270 mm (11 in) thick and the roofs were 110 mm (4.3 in) thick. The 15 cm guns had 150 mm worth of armor plating in the casemates; the guns themselves had 70 mm (2.8 in) thick shields to protect their crews from shell splinters. - that has quite a large number of repeats of the word thick in a small space. I'd advise dropping a few. For example, you could say the sides were 300 mm thick and the roof was 130 mm (5.1 in). It is clear that both measurements are of thickness but you remove a duplicated word.
    • Trimmed most of these
  • Construction and cancellation section: the the midship section links you to the top of section A of the glossary in reference to "amidships" but there is also the term midships in the same glossary under section M. This could be confusing as readers will pop up at section A looking for a word that appears later in section M. According to the glossary, Amidships is the middle compared to port and starboard, while Midships is the the middle compared to bow and stern. Are we using the right word but linking to the wrong section, or is it the right section but wrong word?
    • It's somewhat complicated - while there is probably a distinction to the saltiest of sea dogs, "admidships" and "midships" are used interchangeably by most people (Dictionary.com provides both definitions for amidships and midships as a variant of the former). There's a way to use an anchor to take readers directly to the word in question, rather than the top of the section - let me fiddle with the glossary and get that to work correctly.
      • I've gone ahead with a temporary fix of having the midship link pointing to midships. That is sufficient for me to give support here but feel free to implement the more advanced anchoring method. From Hill To Shore (talk)
  • Construction and cancellation section: Is footnote c in the right place? It looks like it could relate to either the second or fourth sentence but has little bearing on the fifth or sixth sentences.
    • Good point
  • References: An ISBN check of Grießmer, Axel shows that we are only using a small portion of the title. Is there a reason for this? The full subheading may be a bit big but the primary heading includes the period of coverage.
    • Added - a lot of articles to fix for that ;)
  • References: I would advise applying "origyear=First published 1980" to Herwig, Holger per Template:Cite_book#Date.
    • Added

I have no access to the text of the sources so I will leave it to others to verify the cited text. Other than that my review is complete. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and made a few changes in line with your comments above. I'm now happy to give my support. Well done. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from CaptainEek

[edit]

Howdy hello! A darn good job for sure, and I always find ships fascinating (they don't call me the captain for naught). With that in mind, some notes:

  • I feel like the fact that they planned but not realized should be baked into the first sentence of the lead. The third paragraph of the lead could then just begin by noting the reasons they weren't completed.
    • Good idea
  • Why is battlecrusier linked in the first development paragraph, but battleship isn't?
    • Fixed
  • "which led to questions in the RMA over the three ships" Why?
    • In a nutshell, Tirpitz exercised a a great degree of control over ship design during his tenure, and with him gone, individuals with different views had more of an ability to influence new ships
  • "GK1, GK2, and GK3" Any particular reason for the naming scheme?
    • GK stood for Grosse Kreuzer (large cruiser), which is what the Germans called their battlecruisers at the time - I didn't include it since I didn't think readers would care about an arcane naming scheme (especially since it would require explaining what "Grosse Kreuzer" means), but I can work something in if you think it's worthwhile.
      • Well, I wondered, I think a quick note could be helpful.
        • Added a note on that
  • You list "General Department", but a few sentences earlier said "General Navy Department". Are they the same or different? If the same, standardize the naming
    • Done
  • Why mention armor in the general characteristics if you have an entire section on armor? On my first read-through, the out of place mention of armor there left me with a lot of questions. Having it in two different places seems disjointed to me.
    • I'm not sure what you're talking about - the general characteristics section only talks about the dimensions and construction of the hull and the projected crew.
      • Going back through, I realized I misread that. Nvm :)
  • "The guns were expected to fire around 1,400 shells before they needed to be replaced." That seems...unusual. Is that typical for medium caliber naval guns of the era? Do any of the sources mention that being unusual, or give commentary on that statistic? Did the whole gun need replacing, or did its barrel simply need to be re-machined?
    • That's fairly standard - most naval guns of the era were built-up guns that had rifled liners that would be replaced periodically (see the "A tube" in this diagram - you can see the same thing in practice here)
      • Ah, thanks for the explanation. Perhaps you should mention in-text that it was a built-up gun, if you have a source to back up the claim? Then you can say something like "Being a built-up gun, it would last 1400 rounds before replacement"
  • "Hexanite" shouldn't be capitalized
    • Fixed
  • Having the battleships portal render above the footnotes section creates some odd looking whitespace. Perhaps that could be moved to under the footnotes section so that it renders still at the top-right but doesn't create odd whitespace? Or perhaps move it down the page further?
    • I think this has been fixed

All in all, a top notch job with just a few nitpicks. Please ping me once you've implemented things or if you have any questions. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article, @CaptainEek:. Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Good fixes! I have replied to a few points above CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:58, 17 January 2020 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ersatz_Yorck-class_battlecruiser/archive1&oldid=1073368684"