Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Wörth/archive1
- 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 GrahamColm 04:10, 15 June 2014 [1].
SMS Wörth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another one of my German battleship articles. This one had a relatively active career, having taken part in the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion, though she was long-since obsolete by the outbreak of World War I. For what it's worth (wörth?), if and when this article is promoted, it will provide the necessary number of FAs to turn this current good topic into (I think) the second largest Featured topic on Wikipedia. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Some details differ between infobox and text, such as draft
- Good catch, I didn't notice the different draft when I copied over the updated infobox from the SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm article.
- Be consistent in whether you include states for locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All removed. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Hamiltonstone. Not the sort of article I generally review, but i found it well-written and explained. In the 1901-1914 section, is there any link available to explain to a layreader the concept of a "Reserve Formation" or "Reserve status"? I take it the convention with these articles has been not to footnote the facts in the infobox because they are all cited in the text? If so, that's fine. Don't think i can fault anything else. Good work. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Recusing myself from delegate duties, I reviewed and copyedited at MilHist ACR and, having looked over changes made in the interim, I believe it meets the FA criteria as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.