Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Schwaben/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2017 [1].


Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another German battleship, this one spent much of its career in a training role. She was also one of a handful of old battleships retained by Germany after war, though only after having been converted into a depot ship for minesweepers. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC) This article is in great shape. I have only one point:[reply]

Query Why not use File:SMS Schwaben.jpg? ϢereSpielChequers 20:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no source for a pre-1923 publication, so we can't prove it's PD in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Schwaben spent the majority of her career.. - why not just, "Schwaben spent most of her career"?
That sounds good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should the conversions be rounded - eg 250 mm to 10 in rather than 9.8 in?
As a general rule, I don't like to do too much rounding with these figures - there have been times where slightly different figures round to the same conversion, and that can cause confusion. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Otherwise looks in order...but I am no expert in the area. I can say that it is accessible to a neophyte...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Casliber! Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Have I missed a source review on this? If we don't have one yet, it can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No concerns re. source reliability, I just tweaked formatting a bit. Given the depth of MilHist review prior to FAC, and Cas' (by his own admission!) neophyte check for accessibility, I think we can safely close this long-running review now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.