The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Promoted SMS Markgraf. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

• Featured article candidates/SMS Markgraf/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

The last König class ship to grace the ACR process, Markgraf saw heavy service during World War I, including the Battle of Jutland and Operation Albion. This article passed a GA review last month, and I feel it's very close to meeting our A-class criteria. I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring this article meets and exceeds our standards, in preparation for an eventual FAC. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The article follows the same layout as the last SMS battleship article I had a chance to review. The German WP article mentions five commanding officers during the ships service history. Could this be added? At least mention the name of the captain that was shot (Walter Schumann).

Unfortunately, the German WP article is completely unsourced, so I can't take any information directly from that. I found a reference to Walter Schumann in Van der Vat's The Grand Scuttle, which I just ordered on Amazon - hopefully I'll have it in a week or so. Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe. Biographien - ein Spiegel der Marinegeschichte von 1815 bis zur Gegenwart. (10 Bände) ISBN 3836497433 or Linienschiffe: Von der Nassau- zur König-Klasse ISBN 3763759948. There are many German publications available which you could consult. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, they're not readily available in the US - Worldcat.org can't find any of the first book, and there are four of the second, but the closest one is 300 miles away in the Library of Congress. Parsecboy (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just ordered them. Let's see what they tell us. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz the ship was named after the house of de:Markgrafen von Baden (Margrave of Baden) see Volume 6 page 43. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is right - the names seem to all indicate the titles held by Emperor Wilhelm's predecessors: King (in Prussia), Great Elector (of Brandenburg), Markgraf (of Brandenburg), Crown Prince. Probably worth researching more - I'll see what I can find. Kirk (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I browsed a half-dozen ship history books - its very uncommon for any battleships to have an explanation for the name, and I didn't find any reason for the names of the König class, or the SMS Markgraf (or the names of the Kaiser class either). The only one I found was an unsourced caption for a picture for the Grosser Kurfürst in the Encyclopedia of Ships, page 321 that linked the name to Der Grosse Kurfürst]. Kirk (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check Koop, Gerhard; Schmolke, Klaus-Peter (1999). Von der Nassau- zur König-Klasse (in German). Bonn, Germany: Bernard & Graefe Verlag. ISBN 3-7637-5994-8. on page 131 it reads "Namensgeber: Eine Ehrung des badischen Herrscherhauses" my translation "to honour the house/dynasty of Baden" MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with 'Named in honor of the Royal Family of Baden', which had a large number of Margraves in the past. Kirk (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the article now but I still think that it should be mentioned that the ship was named on behalf of the margrave of Baden. A further testimony of this is the fact that the ship was christioned by Frederick II. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• III Battle Squadron, III Squadron , 1st Battlecruiser Squadron ... I have no clue what this is or how this is organized. Could you add footnote or a dummy stub article that tells me what this is.
  • I added a link to High Seas Fleet at the first mention of the III Squadron - I'm planning on fleshing that article out soon. Added a link to 1st Battlecruiser Squadron (United Kingdom). Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Link the first occurrence of I Scouting Group not the second
  • The first was already linked, I removed the second link. Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What is known about the crew?
  • Like most warships, next to nothing. Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Footnote 2 could use a citation
  • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Footnote 4. Use the following format to include the citation in the footnote ((#tag:ref| text <ref>citation</ref>|group=Note))
  • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• According to Koop and Schmolke launched on 4 June 1913 (correct in Construction and design) not 3 June 1913 (see lead section and info box). see page 20. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a typo, thanks for catching it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Markgraf was christioned by Frederick II, Grand Duke of Baden. see Koop and Schmolke page 131 MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• According to Koop and Schmolke, commander Schumann was shot in a lifeboat. see Koop and Schmolke page 131 MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry but English is too poor to understand what this means "when Moltke and the four Königs covered the landing of ground troops". Four Königs!? Do you mean four König-class ships or does this mean something else? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neufahrwasser is in Gdansk. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Kynö is Kihnu MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not sure about this but I believe that Kalkgrund is in the Flensburger Förde. Please check MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a Kalkgrund Bank in the Förde but this is somewhere in the Gulf of Riga. Larina Bank is on the eastern side of the Gulf, so I'd imagine Kalkgrund is as well, but I can't find it anywhere. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise nice job. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A1 Mostly good, some fixitsFifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miscited, "Campbell Jutland, "Germany 1906–1922", in Sturton, p. 36". There are two Campbell sources, Jutland and "Germany 1906–1922"; which is this?
  • Given in bibliography but not cited, "Sweetman, Jack (1997)."
  • Location required: Butler, Daniel Allen (2006).
  • Harrisburg is unknown to me, what country or state? Preston, Anthony (1972).
    • All four fixed - thanks for finding these, Fifelfoo. Parsecboy (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
• ("His Majesty's Ship Margrave") I am having a problem with translating the name of the vessel this way, especially as it implies that the ship was somehow connected to the Royal Navy. Proper names are normally not translated. Am I missing something? Rumiton (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was determined to be the best way to explain what "SMS" means , along with the translation of the word - there are plenty of navies that use "His Majesty's Ship" as the prefix. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still ill at ease with it, and I'm pretty sure others will be as well. Normally no attempt is made to translate a proper noun, whether of a person, a company, a state, an animal, or as here, a ship. And I can't think of any other monarchy with a navy that uses that prefix in English. Rumiton (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We've been doing it at least since July of last year, and no one else has raised an objection. Most other royal navies use the term (though it's usually altered, as in the case of HNoMS Stord (G26), for instance, even though the insertion of "No" isn't strictly accurate.) As for the translation, the name in this case is a thing that should be explained (i.e., it was a title held by Wilhelm II, and it has an English translation). Would you prefer [[Margrave|Markgraf]]? Parsecboy (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have found HMS always to be altered in English to avoid confusion. eg His Danish Majesty's ship, His Swedish Majesty etc. I think I would prefer if it were made clear that we are translating (or attempting to translate) the name and title, rather than providing an alternate or previous name (which is the way I read it at first.) Having spent 29 years in a navy, and being a German speaker, if I made that mistake, then probably others will. Rumiton (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Beautifully argued. Parsec, are you okay with substituting "His German Majesty's ship" for "His Majesty's ship" in all our SMS articles? Rumiton, on the point of spelling out the acronym, we're following Chicago 10.3: spell them out at first occurrence, except for the most common ones, the ones with pronunciations given in Merriam-Webster. Chicago doesn't say what to do with foreign acronyms (probably because they believe they're covered by their advice to avoid unfamiliar acronyms), but I think it's safe to say that few readers need to see "Seiner Majestäts Schiff" in the lead sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine by me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments:
  • according to the tools, some of the images lack alt text, you might consider adding it [1];
  • inconsistent capitalisation: "became Commander in chief" (commander in chief or Commander in Chief?);
    • Fixed this one. - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Scouting group appears to be linked on second mention, rather than the first
    • Fixed this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two shells killed 11 and wounded 31" and then later "which killed eleven men and wounded thirteen". Seems inconsistent in style;
    • I changed it to "11 men and wounded 13", but I've never seen a satisfactory interpretation of WP:ORDINAL on this point. I think Parsec was writing "eleven" because of the "five" earlier in the sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this, however, forced Grosser Kurfürst to haul out of formation" ("fall out of formation", perhaps?);
    • Maybe it hauled ass out of formation? I went with "fall out". - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is a punctuation issue here: "Kronprinz Wilhelm sank at 16:45;[3] The British guard detail panicked in their" AustralianRupert (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My comments have all been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for taking care of these Dan, and thanks for reviewing the article, AR. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Support
  

Only a few minor ones from me:

• • In 'Battle of Jutland' section, you use "III Battle Squadron" and "III Squadron", are these the same? This is repeated in the 'Subsequent operations' and 'Operation Albion' sections. I accept this may be an attempt to avoid repetition but I think consistency is probably more desirable;
    • ... made more complicated by the fact that there are two different III Battle Squadrons! This is a tough one. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should you use rank here?: "under the command of David Beatty" (e.g. Admiral David Beatty, or whatever rank he was); and
    • I don't know the answer. He's called "Vice-Admiral Sir David Beatty" in for instance HMS Indefatigable (1909). - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't seem quite right to me: "fired on an imaginary submarine." perhaps "fired on an submarine which turned out to be imaginary" or something similar?. Anotherclown (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or maybe "fired at what they thought was a submarine". - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Campbell always refers to them as "imaginary submarines," though Dan's suggestion works for me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes I would be happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I lost track of this, but have since fixed the sentence per Dan's suggestion. Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I made the edits; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk)
• Not a lot of comments, not a lot to fix, and almost all the things that I'm tweaking aren't things we've covered before ... which makes me really happy. You've made a remarkable effort here. - Dank (push to talk)
• "8-inch thick": I went with "8-inch-thick", but "8-inch" is also okay. Probably, the reason "8-inch thick" looked right to you is that we're usually converting the unit, so we've been omitting the final hyphen, because 8-inch (20 cm)-thick would look awful. - Dank (push to talk)
• I've reworded in a few cases where the pronouns "this" and "which" were some distance from what they were modifying. This was a stylistic call, and you were quite right that there was no serious possibility of mistaking the subjects of these pronouns. - Dank (push to talk)
• "one of the only remaining sources of radiation-free steel.": You're restricted to what the source says, of course, but there's a lot of steel underwater and underground, so "only" seems like an overstatement to me. I went with "among the few accessible", but feel free to revert. Also, there was a lot more long-term radiation released through above-ground tests than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki so I said that ... but of course, if the source included those as sources of radiation, I guess you have to as well (unless you have a better source). - Dank (push to talk) 04:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing with the steel is, there's plenty of radiation free iron ore, but to make steel you have to use a lot of oxygen, which contains trace radioactivity from nuclear tests. The steel in these ships is quite literally some of the only radiation-free steel on the planet. Everything else looks fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not following; isn't any railroad track that got buried or submerged before 1945 a source of radiation-free steel? - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Presumably, but you're talking about comparatively minuscule quantities of metal; there are thousands of tons of steel in these ships. This is also high quality steel we're talking about. Parsecboy (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - another interesting article. Good luck! Kirk (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose

• No supporting citations for the armor, crew or the range figures in the infobox. Add cites there, or, the better solution, IMO, add a descriptive paragraph with cites. I suspect this is also an issue with your other ACR so do the same over there so I don't have to repeat myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a couple of lines to the construction section. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Lots of jargon isn't linked and will be a problem at FAC, where I presume this is headed. If not, then I don't care so much.
  • I added some links in the technical section - is there anything else you'd like to see linked? Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Launched, commissioned, mine jumped out at me, but I'm sure that there are others. It's really annoying to have do these for each article, but not so bad if you can just copy-paste from an older article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You're over-abbreviating. This is most annoying when dealing with ranges and speeds as I can't really see a need to abbreviate yards or knots. But I that's just my preference and I'm not opposing over that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, I prefer to give the unit the first time and then abbreviate it after that, but I'm not wedded to it or anything. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general I follow your precept, except for the really short units like yards and knots, but again that's just my taste.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.