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 EyeSerene^talk 10:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

• Featured article candidates/SMS Deutschland (1904)/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Yet another German battleship - this was the lead ship of the last class of pre-dreadnoughts. I wrote this back in April and it passed a GA review at that time. I think this article is pretty close to A-class standards, hence the nomination. I look forward to working with the reviewers to ensure that this article meets MILHIST standards. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Technical stuff
  • No dab links, broken links or missing alt text. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- well written/cited/structured; just a couple of queries/suggestions:
  • After joining the German fleet, Deutschland was tactically assigned to the II Battle Squadron, though she was the fleet flagship and so not subordinate to the Squadron commander. -- do you mean "technically", rather than "tactically"?
    • Either would work; I chose tactically because that's what the source says. "Tactically she was assigned to II Squadron." Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deutschland was slightly grounded in the Baltic... -- would "partially" be more correct than "slightly" (sounds better to me, anyway). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's much better. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- "... Mausoleum of Prince Heinrich in Hemmelmark": According to the German Wiki article, Hemmelmark is an estate. Shouldn't it therefore read ... Mausoleum of Prince Heinrich on the Hemmelmark estate.? Sorry for this nerdy question. Well done! MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I had no idea what or where Hemmelmark is, so I guess your suggested wording would be better. I substituted it for the old version. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re A1, citation presentation, all good. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for checking those, Fifelfoo. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
  • image is appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • Citation # 23 "Tarrant, pp. 246–7" I think should be "Tarrant, pp. 246–247" for consistency (e.g. #14, 15, 19 etc. use the full numbers);
  • two of the sources (Groner and Tarrant) in the References section have hyphenated ISBNs, but the others don't;
  • the Herwig source should have an endash for the year range. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• All issues fixed, thanks for finding those. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Only one quibble, coal or oil-fired?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2010 (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.