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 SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [1].

---

German battleship Tirpitz[edit]

German battleship Tirpitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/German battleship Tirpitz/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last battleship built by Germany, Tirpitz saw relatively little action during her career, which consisted primarily of serving as a fleet in being in Norway during WWII. This article passed a MILHIST A-class review in July (see here) and a GA review in March (see here). I think the article is at or close to FA criteria, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring the article displays Wikipedia's best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to make a review. Parsecboy (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Check spelling of the name of Zetterling's co-author, you've got a couple of variations
• Missing source info for Breyer
• Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for publishers, and if so how these are formatted/linked. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should all be fixed. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nigel Ish (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The chapter title and author for Conway's All The World's Battleships is incorrect - there isn't really a single distinct chapter for "Germany 1906–22" - but merely the parts of the book covering those ships were written by Campbell. The Tirpitz stuff would presumably fall under the contributions of Erwin Sieche, who is credited for "Germany 1922–46", although again there isn't really a distinct chapter on that time period, although the actual section on "Bismarck class Battleships" could be classed as a chapter. The correct page number for the keel laying of Tirpitz is p. 44, not 43.
• There is no mention of the RAF heavy bomber attacks on the night of 27/28 April 1942 (43 bombers, five lost) and 28/29 April (34 bombers). These attacks are responsible for the Handley Page Halifax that resides in the RAF Museum Hendon, which was shot down and later salvaged fromn a Norwegian Fjord.
• More details of the Fleet Air Arm torpedo bomber attack on 9 March 1942 - we have German losses but not FAA aircraft losses.
• For the attack by the Soviet submarine K-21, it may be worth stating that the soviets claimed that it scored hits on Tirpitz, even if this claim is not supported elsewhere.
  • Should all be addressed now. Thanks for the review. Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Imperial German Navy instead of Kaiserliche Marine seems inconsistent to me with Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, which I think both should be italicized. I'm not 100% sure about this since the latter two are what is common in English, not their English translations.
  • I don't mind one way or the other on English or German, but I don't think Kriegsmarine or Luftwaffe should be italicized; both are pretty common in English, especially Luftwaffe.
    • I'm sure Dank has an opinion. Kirk (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I pinged him to take a look at this if and when he gets to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Waterline length, 3 three-blade propellers, range, number of floatplanes and catapult type not cited.
  • Cites added.
• I suggest adding 'as built' to the armament and add a summary of the 1942 changes in the infobox.
  • Added.
• Link/expand the KzS in KzS Hans Meyer, or leave it out and replace 'Commander' with 'Captain'.
  • Kapitän zur See is linked earlier in the article.
    • To the average reader its an odd looking abbreviation because its the German abbreviation form; based on Scharnhorst I put a (KzS) after the first Kapitän zur See instance, maybe someone else has an opinion.
      • That sounds fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider summarizing the total casualties and putting your discussion of the sources in a note.
• The explanation of Wehrmachtbericht in the prose doesn't really match the lead of its article - maybe you should mention 'radio' in there somewhere?
  • Clarified it was a radio broadcast
• Optionally, consider adding upper deck armor to infobox and I think the Service History would look better if it was 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 instead of 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2. Kirk (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds fine to me. Thanks for reviewing the article, Kirk. Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I thought I would mention the speed in the infobox is cited with the same citation as the trial speed; I looked at Bismarck and you had the trial speed in the infobox. Kirk (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Starting off with some of the issues raised above. Concerning Imperial German Navy vs. Kaiserliche Marine vs. Kaiserliche Marine ... weirdly, I just ran Google's ngram for these this morning, not knowing you had asked the question! "German Imperial Navy" comes in at roughly the same frequency as Kaiserliche Marine. The number of hits on a phrase drops of course in general with each word you add to the phrase since it's looking for exact matches ... roughly speaking, this means if you need to add an adjective like "German" to disambiguate and make sure all your hits are on the right navy, the frequency you get will underrepresent the "real" answer, in some sense. Put all this together, and Imperial German Navy blows Kaiserliche Marine out of the water, in English sources at least.
• Concerning italics for German proper nouns: there's no one rule. The general idea is not to italicize the more common German proper nouns that show up in English sources (Luftwaffe). Use italics for proper nouns whenever not using them would probably lead to a mispronunciation (such as pronouncing Kaiserliche Marine as if it went "Huah!") or a WTF moment (Reichsgesetzblatt for instance ... see MisterBee1966's articles for lots of examples). Generally (and here my copyediting style differs from MisterBee's), avoid German words that haven't "crossed over", that don't show up in at least some English-language general references. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow me to make one comment. I use the German terms not because I dislike the English equivalent, I use them because in many cases I am unsure of their correct English equivalent. A linguistic correct translation does not necessarily imply a semantic correct translation. I personally prefer correct semantic representation over ease of reading in English. I try to strike a balance between the two and sometimes the balance tips in one direction and sometimes in the other. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed with all of that. - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• For Kriegsmarine, I actually don't know what the English translation would be ... what I get from a gsearch is phrases like "the German Navy under the Nazis", which isn't a (single) proper noun. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "FuMO": ?
  • No issues as usual, Dan. I've added a note on FuMO. Thanks for taking the time to work on this over the holidays :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk)
• "On the night of 27–28 April, thirty-one Halifaxes and twelve Lancasters;": Something's missing. - Dank (push to talk) 04:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 06:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Add |adj=on to conversions where you don't abbreviate the bomb weight.
  • Added.
• Add a period after Adolf Hitler.
  • Fixed.
• No info on boilers in main body, nor a cite in infobox.
  • Added to the body.
• What was the function of all these radars, which also need to be linked?
  • Do we have articles on the radars? As far as I know, all we have is Seetakt radar - Würzburg radar appears to only cover land-based systems.
    • I'll settle for redlinks and an explanation of their functions like gunnery, search or whatever. One of these days I'll boost my articles created count by starting articles on most of these radars as I've been collecting the info as I find it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What does L/52, etc. mean? My usual formulation is x-caliber y-size gun with a link to the proper definition of caliber.
  • L = Länge/52 caliber. FYI the other FA German ship articles aren't very consistent about including this detail or any explanation or links, but it seems important. Kirk (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sturm knows what it means - he was asking for a note explaining it.
      • If you are going with a notes, I would define SK too, but this is the first one I've seen. Isn't the link enough?
      • I think there should be a more a consistent method of displaying the armament in the infobox - if you look at other FA Battleships, some contain links, some don't; some contain the additional details like the model/caliper length, others just have the number/caliper, etc. See Yamato, Iowa, Friedrich der Grosse Hood, etc. And plenty of your other articles could have a note explaining SK L/x if you think its helpful. Kirk (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Caliber is very confusing to the uninitiated as it means either the bore diameter of the gun or length of the barrel. I've clarified the difference in the gun articles that I've written and tried to do it the ship articles using the formulation given above. It's a bit easier for British articles because they don't put gun length in their gun designations. Not as easy for German or American guns where the articles have it in the titles. I do believe that it should be explained in all ship articles if people mention it. I'm perfectly happy if people just call it a 38 cm gun with a link, but it they call in a 5"/38 then they'd best explain what the /38 or L/52 or whatever means.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Add a year to combat operations on 10 January
  • Added.
• Link torpedo boat, fuel oil, target ship, list
  • Linked - list was already linked in the Operation Source section.
• I thought we used a slash for nights, forex 27/28 March?
  • I typically use an ndash for it
• Oil or coal-fuelled?
  • Added
• Combine these two sentences: Shortly after Tirpitz left Norway, the Soviet submarine K-21 fired a pair of torpedoes at the ship, both of which missed.[34] The Soviets claimed two hits on the battleship, however.
  • Done.
• This is awkward: near misses, which holed the side shell with splinters. Perhaps a better phrasing would be something like "splinters from the near misses holed the ship's side" or some such.
  • See how it reads now.
• If you have access, this is a better source for the carrier-based attacks: Brown, J. D. (2009). Carrier Operations in World War II. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-59114-108-2.
  • I can get it through ILL, but I won't be on campus until January so it'd have to wait until then. Is there anything significant missing?
    • More detail on the attacking aircraft and the size of the bombs that they dropped. You might be able to extract most of those details from the HMS Furious (47) article as it was a primary participant in the attacks. I'm not at home and can't pull that info for you myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added in those details for the Tungsten and Goodwood III attacks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't hyphenate near miss. Capitalize 3rd Group of the 5th Fighter Wing
  • Fixed.
• Spell out state names. Add country to Hildebrand, Sweetman, Torkildsen, Williamson--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added.

Comments by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)

• Generally speaking I am not satisfied with how little we learn about the crew and its organization. I note that you think it belongs in the class article. It should be noted that about 800 200 of her surviving crew were later assigned to the heavy cruiser Lützow. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a reference for the bit on the crew transfer? I didn't come across it when I wrote the article on Deutschland/Lützow. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • see Prager, Hans Georg (2001). Panzerschiff Deutschland, Schwerer Kreuzer Lützow: ein Schiffs-Schicksal vor den Hintergründen seiner Zeit (in German). Hamburg, Germany: Koehler. ISBN 3-7822-0798-X.

on page 287 it reads (my translation). In January 1945 about 200 survivors are to replace the old cadets on Lützow. On page 292 Prager states that an overhead enemy aerial recon aircraft causes the former Tirpitz crew members to panic. I guess the experience on Tirpitz left some bad memories. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - File:Tirpitz-2.jpg: publication date? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's August 13, 1942, which I've added to the image summary. Parsecboy (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support changes look fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Comments' from Ealdgyth:[reply]

• General:
  • Can we get English translations for the various German names of things (not ships or the company that built the Tirpitz) but such as "Kapitän zur See" or "Kriegsmarine" and other similar things? I realize that there is not exact equivalent, but a rough idea of a translation would be helpful, rather than forcing the reader to click through to another article.
    • Added. Let me know if there's anything I missed.
• Lead:
  • Don't like the switch to present tense here "While stationed in Norway, Tirpitz could also be used to intercept Allied convoys to the Soviet Union, and two such missions were attempted in 1942." can we rephrase?
    • How does it look now?
  • "...the only time the ship used her main battery in anger." the easter egg link is annoying - any way to rephrase this? Perhaps "...the only time the ship used her main battery in combat." and just avoid the link altogether?
    • How about if I linked it directly to wikt:fired in anger?
• Construction:
  • "Tirpitz was ordered as Ersatz Schleswig-Holstein as a replacement..." when was the name changed?
    • At the commissioning - all German warships were ordered as either "Ersatz xxxx" to replace a worn out vessel or a single letter as an increase in the size of the fleet. See for example here.
  • "Tirpitz displaced 42,900 t (42,200 long tons)..." why the abbreviation in the main part but no abbreviation in the parenthetical? Can we get the full unit in the main part?
    • Long tons don't have an abbreviation (don't ask me why), but I've changed the template to spell out the first unit.
• Deployment:
  • "RAF" isn't explained earlier in the article - non-military folks aren't going to necessarily recognize the acronym
    • Added initials to the first reference to the RAF.
  • "Admiral John Tovey, the commander in chief of the Home Fleet, was..." suggest "Admiral John Tovey, the commander in chief of the British Home Fleet, was... " just to make it clear to the non-specialist
    • Fixed as you suggested.
• Operations:
  • Why suddenly do we have a ship prefix for "Escorting the convoy were the battleships Duke of York and USS Washington and the carrier..." when we've never used them before this? Looks very odd to the non-military reader and isn't consistent with the rest of the article.
    • I wanted to make clear that it was an American ship (all the rest are British) without a clumsy construction like "the British battleship Duke of York and the American battleship Washington and the carrier..."
  • As a non-military reader, is there a reason for the non-italicization of the submarine in "..the Soviet submarine K-21 fired a pair of torpedoes..."? Confusing to me...
    • It should be italicized, good catch.
• Operations Pravane:
  • Now you link RAF - "...transferred to the RAF's No. 5 Group."... really need to link it on first occurance way up above...
    • That's an overlinking - it's linked the first time in the Construction section.
• Linkage - you have repeat links to Lancaster heavy bombers (in Operations Paravane section) as well as to Luftwaffe in the last paragraph of Operation Catechism.
  • Should be all fixed.
• Overall, very interesting and kept my attention. Just a couple of niggles above, which should be easily fixed, and I'll be glad to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reviewing it, Ealdgyth - you've made a lot of good suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks ready to promote. Kirk (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reviewing the article, Kirk. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why "Links" instead of "External links" (WP:LAYOUT-- I suspect y'all do these things to see if I'm reading :) Also, most citations do not end in a period, the last three do. Why are the "Operation" names in italics? " ... laid down at the Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven in November 1936 and launched two and a half years later. Work was completed in February 1941, when she was commissioned ... " I had to read on to see that the hull was launched before she was completely outfitted. This may be common for you shipfolks, but we lay people don't know that, so the lead confused me ... could that be clarified by adding hull somewhere in the lead, or something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know - an editor added that the other day and I didn't catch it. But I like your answer better. I started using italics for the operation names for the German ones, and then carried over to the British operations without thinking much about it. There's no need for them though, so I removed them, as well as the periods in the last three citations. I added a bit to the lead to clarify that it was the hull that was launched. Is there anything else you see that needs fixing? Parsecboy (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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