Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2016 [1].

---

SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

After a bit of a hiatus at FAC, I'm back with another article on a German warship, this time a battleship that served during World War I. The article passed a Milhist A-class review back in October 2014, and has waited for a shot at FAC since then. Thanks for all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:SMS_Kaiser_Karl_der_Grosse.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The source does not say, and it would be unlikely to be able to track it down, but given that it's a photo from Arthur Renard, who sold his photos to the public in the age of navalism, it was available to the public from the time it was taken. See for instance, this advertisement posted by Renard in 1900. Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    • See also, for example, this similar photo - ONI routinely acquired photos of foreign ships in commission for intelligence and recognition purposes. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'll add comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• "SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse (His Majesty's Ship "Charles the Great")" and "Charlemagne (spelled Karl der Grosse in German)" Why do you give two different English versions of the namesake?
  • "Charles the Great" is the more direct translation, but I guess that's unnecessary.
• "aground in the lower Elbe." Perhaps add "river" for clarity. You also link the river twice.
  • Good idea
• "Charlemagne (spelled Karl der Grosse in German)" It isn't really a different "spelling" as such. Charles the Great is spelled Karl der Grosse, but Charlemagne is a different version of the name, you could say.
  • Charlemagne is just the French spelling, so it's arguably correct, but either way I think it's redundant, so I removed it.
• "in the Jade." What does this mean?
  • Guess I forgot to link to Jade Bight
• It doesn't seem that the Danish town and area Skagen is referred to as "the Skagen" anywhere outside this article?
  • The word now refers to the town, but it used to refer to the peninsula and the surrounding waters, and it is used elsewhere - see for instance this book or this one. Wikipedia tends to favor current usage, but it's not wrong to
• "By 1908, the new "all-big-gun" dreadnought battleships were entering service. As the ship was completely obsolete" None of this is stated in the article body.
  • Yeah, that bit got lost when I rewrote the article. Thanks for pointing that out.
• You there, Parsecboy? FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah - it was Labor Day weekend here in the US, so I wasn't around to take care of things here. Should all be addressed now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - all looks good to me then, happy Labor Day (if that's what you say)! FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ykraps

Feel free to ignore anything here. I have only commented on two FACs before and on one of those my remarks were not well received. Some of the prose issues I've highlighted are the same things I have trouble with so apologies if my alternative suggestions aren't any better.--Ykraps (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• "11,785t" Is that tons (imperial) or tonnes (metric)?
  • "t" is the symbol for tonnes, but linked for clarity.
• "Normal crew" sounds odd. What about usual complement?
• Not sure about construction coming under service particularly as she wasn’t commissioned until 1902 so strictly speaking not in service. What about having the previous heading as design and construction?
  • Narrative-wise, it makes more sense to talk about it with the service history, since it's all part of the life of the ship. And I don't generally like splitting off single paragraphs into their own section.

    Okay, I guess that's a reasonable argument.

• "She was ordered under the contract name "B" as a new ship of the fleet. The ship's keel was laid on 17 September 1898 at the Blohm & Voss in Hamburg under yard number 136.[1][4] She was the first capital ship to be built by the yard, and the second warship of any type..." Two sentences together starting "she" sounds awkward.
  • There's actually one between them that starts with "The ship's..."

    Okay, missed that.

• I appreciate the ship went on a lot of manouvres but, "Autumn maneuvers, which began in the Baltic..", "The maneuvers concluded in the North Sea...", "The autumn maneuvers consisted of a blockade..." Can we substitute manouvres for "operations" or "excercises" anywhere?
  • There are already a few "exercises" and "operations" in that paragraph - there's only a limited number of words to be substituted, so some repetition is going to happen, one way or the other.

    Agreed. It's something I find a problem too. Just thought it was worth another look.

• And, "Kaiser Karl der Grosse participated in an exercise in the Skagerrak from 11 to 21 January 1904. Squadron exercises followed from 8 to 17 March. A major fleet exercise took place in the North Sea in May", uses excercises three times in a row. What about, "Kaiser Karl der Grosse participated in an exercises in the Skagerrak from 11 to 21 January 1904, with her squadron from 8 to 17 March and with the fleet in the North Sea in May."? Or similar?
  • That sounds fine to me.
• "The I Squadron anchored in Vlissingen the following day. There, the ships were visited by Queen Wilhelmina. The I Squadron remained in Vlissingen until 20 July, when they departed for a cruise in the northern North Sea with the rest of the fleet. The squadron stopped in Molde, Norway, on 29 July, while the other units went to other ports". What about, "The I Squadron anchored in Vlissingen the following day where the ships were visited by Queen Wilhelmina. Departing on 20 July for a cruise in the northern North Sea with the rest of the fleet, the squadron stopped in Molde, Norway, nine days later while the other units went to other ports"?
  • Works for me.
• "The fleet undertook a heavier training schedule in 1906 than in previous years. The ships were occupied with individual, division and squadron exercises throughout April. Starting on 13 May, major fleet exercises took place in the North Sea and lasted until 8 June with a cruise around the Skagen into the Baltic.[17] The fleet began its usual summer cruise to Norway in mid-July. Kaiser Karl der Grosse and the I Squadron anchored in Molde, where they were joined on 21 July by Wilhelm II aboard the steamer SS Hamburg. The fleet was present for the birthday of Norwegian King Haakon VII on 3 August. The German ships departed the following day for Helgoland, to join exercises being conducted there. The fleet was back in Kiel by 15 August, where preparations for the autumn maneuvers began". Half the sentences here begin, "The fleet..." which sounds a little repetitive. What about, "A heavier training schedule than in previous years was undertaken in 1906. The ships were occupied with individual, division and squadron exercises throughout April. Starting on 13 May, major fleet exercises took place in the North Sea and lasted until 8 June with a cruise around the Skagen into the Baltic[17] followed by the usual summer cruise to Norway in mid-July. Kaiser Karl der Grosse and the I Squadron anchored in Molde, where they were joined on 21 July by Wilhelm II aboard the steamer SS Hamburg. The fleet was present for the birthday of Norwegian King Haakon VII on 3 August then departed the following day for Helgoland, to join exercises being conducted there. The German ships were back in Kiel by 15 August, where preparations for the autumn maneuvers began".
  • This is similar to the issue with maneuver/exercise/operation above - one of the things I've been trying to avoid is "follow/ed/ing", which is already in that paragraph once (and several other times throughout the article), and you rewrote one of the "the fleet" bits to include a "followed". In any event, I've removed a couple of "the fleet"s - see if that works for you. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

    Okay, just a suggestion. Your recent edits are an improvement.

• "In 1903, the fleet, which was composed of only one squadron of battleships, was reorganized as the 'Active Battle Fleet'". I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Are you saying there was only a single squadron of battleships within the fleet, or are you saying the squadron of battleships was the fleet?
  • In a word, yes. The fleet also included cruisers, torpedo boats, and such, but in terms of what counted, the battleships were the fleet. See if what I added helps with clarity. Parsecboy (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

    I think that's much clearer, thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support--Ykraps (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from auntieruth

• In typical high-handed fashion, I've made three minor grammatical corrections (commas and changed an adjective to its different form). If you are unhappy, easy to revert.
  • All seem fine to me, thanks Ruth.
• I could not find the (linked) reference to Kiel, only the link to Kiel Regatta. There are several references to the city, and I think it should have a link.
  • A good idea.
• Very fine article and I was pleased to read it. I'm wondering now if there should be a push to make that arms race thingie that Kaiser Bill and the English went through into a Featured article....
  • Yeah, we probably should at some point. I wonder if Sturmvogel would be interested in working on it with me, having written a number of articles on the British ships. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I'll do an edit on it if you want. For the big picture..... auntieruth (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Support auntieruth (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges

• "an accidental grounding delayed her completion" Is their a more full story you know of? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• There's more detail in the body of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Coord note

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• with two exceptions, all sources are within the last 25 years of publication. Th 1913 source was sited once. The other, the Treaty of Versailles, simply stated the fate of the vessel. The principals sources are standard resources for these ships. auntieruth (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Tks Ruth. Just on formatting, Nate, I'd usually expect the citations to match the references, i.e. German Naval Manoeuvres and European War Notes in quotes rather than italics. Also I don't think we need OCLCs when we have ISBNs. These are minor though so I won't hold up promotion over them... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.