Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Kronprinz (1914)/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 04:35, 20 December 2010 [1].

SMS Kronprinz (1914)[edit]

SMS Kronprinz (1914) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of my German battleship articles - this ship fought at the Battle of Jutland in the front of the German line, but emerged completely unscathed, while her three sisterships directly ahead were the most damaged German battleships in the engagement. Kronprinz engaged and forced the retreat of the Russian battleship Tsarevitch during the Battle of Moon Sound in 1917. She was ultimately interned in Scapa Flow at the end of the war and scuttled by her crew. I feel this article is at or close to the standards for a Featured Article; it passed a MILHIST ACR in October and a GA review the month before. I look forward to working with reviewers over during the FAC, and I appreciate the time you take to review the article. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Footnote 2 gives information which I think should be cited to a source. Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added, and thanks for checking those. Parsecboy (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

  • In the course of the battle, Kronprinz had fired 144 armor-piercing and semi-armor-piercing rounds from her main battery guns,[34] though the exact numbers of each are unknown.[35] The way this reads to me is 'She fired exactly 144 rounds, though the exact numbers are unknown', which I don't think is what you meant. I think you meant each gun/turret/battery?
    • The 144 total is for both AP and semi-AP shells - the breakdown is what's unknown (i.e, 86 AP shells and 58 semi-AP, or whatever).

Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Now I get it; maybe consider qualifying 'each' to 'each type'? Kirk (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ship was never raised for scrapping, unlike most of the other capital ships that were scuttled. Why wasn't it salvaged/scrapped?
    • No idea for certain, but looking at the positioning of the ships that were successfully scuttled and not salvaged, they're all grouped on the right side of Cava. I'd wager the water is deeper there than in the channel between Cava and Hoy, which would make salvage much more difficult. I'd bet the intrusion of WWII in 1939 played a part in it as well - I can tell you SMS Derfflinger sat off Rysa for the duration of the war, waiting to be towed down to Faslane for scrapping. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those all sound like good answers, but I'd think that's a fact at least one of your secondary sources should have asked and answered and you could cite. I recall these ships are valuable for modern salvaging because the steel is not contaminated by radioactivity & I'd be curious to know if this ship has been salvaged recently. Kirk (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found a source you can use via google books pages 140-142; the remaining 3 battleships and 4 cruisers were considered too deep to economically scrap, and were sold to another company which salvaged the steel plates from the remaining wrecks. Kirk (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry for the late reply, but I added some info from a couple of other books (for whatever reason I couldn't see the whole preview of the book you linked) - how does that read now? Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still dislike the Scapa Flow image size/location, but I recall that was decided in the König review. Kirk (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I updated a couple of your notes to contain a <ref> instead of a text citation; hopefully that's ok. Kirk (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switching to support - I assume you'll go back to König and add the scrapping/salvaging text there too. Kirk (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Coal or oil-fired?
  • How long did it take to repair the gun/turret after the gun explosion in May 1915?
    • Staff doesn't say - he mentioned the explosion but gave no details on it. That's the only place I've seen it referenced. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pity.
  • Fleet advance? Is that like a sortie by the bulk of the fleet?
    • Yes - is there an alternative you'd prefer? Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about something like "the fleet sortied" and variations thereon? Advance has a lot of other implications, at least to my mind. And link sortie if you haven't already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed a couple of them for variety, but I left a couple too - Staff, for instance, uses the word almost exclusively, and I think it's useful. Sortie linked. Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The adjectives modifying grounded in the last para of the Operation Albion section read oddly. While not technically incorrect, I don't think that I've often seen usages like those.
    • Staff says "The following day there was a slight grounding, and on 26 October a heavier grounding on the return..."
      • Hmmm... Be nice to know the exact circumstances so you could reword it appropriately. But since you don't, I guess that there's not much that can be done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do believe that there is a book specifically on the salvage, but unfortunately I can't remember any other information.
  • I've made a couple of small changes; see if they work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • supportcomment like Sturmvogel above some sections leave the reader with questions rather than answers;
    • The explosion in May 1915, cause, extent of damage, any casualties, repairs
      • See my reply to Sturm above. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thx, if its unknown then its unknown pitty. Gnangarra 09:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fate section -- British soldiers aboard a nearby drifter shot and killed a stoker from Kronprinz Wilhelm.[41] leaves one pondering why? is there more information available, was this a significant event? could this have been the death last Germany casuality of the war or is just a throw away remark from one source, did it happen before during after the scuttling was there some attempt by the brittish to stop the sinking, was the stoker in the water or on the ship?
      • Staff doesn't give any further details on this incident either, but I'd assume he was still on the ship. Geoffrey Bennett, in Naval Battles of the First World War, states "The few small British vessels that remained in the Flow could do nothing except pick up such Germans as jumped overboard, and order the rest to remain onboard until they were taken off under guard. A few shots were fired to enforce this, accidentally killing the captain of the Markgraf and causing 22 other casualties." That reads to me as a rather controlled response to the scuttling, which doesn't jive with other accounts I've read, such as Herwig's "Luxury" Fleet, which describes the British as having panicked, and Massie's Castles of Steel, which states Markgraf's captain was essentially murdered while waving a white flag. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • thats good change to put it in context, possible chance to link in the SMS Markgraf with something like ..In total, the guards killed nine Germans including the captian and first officer of the SMS Markgraf and wounded twenty-one.. but thats up to you it has no bearing on my decision to support this being promoted to FA. Gnangarra 09:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • besides these couple of questions its was an interesting read with good detail an information though I added years to the article where the sequence of dates passed from 1915 into 1916. Besides the little points already raised it'll have my support. Gnangarra 10:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 22:49, 30 November 2010 (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/SMS_Kronprinz_(1914)/archive1&oldid=403299942"