Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Yorck/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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 15 July 2025 [1].

SMS Yorck

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article, about a German armored cruiser of World War I vintage, is the next in this series that I hope to have turned into a complete Featured Topic in the not-too-distant future. The ship had a fairly short lifespan, having been superseded by more powerful battlecruisers not long after entering service, and then being sunk in the opening months of the war. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

I enjoyed working on the last one, and this is clearly in similarly good nick.

  • Yorck spent the first seven years of her career in I Scouting Group, the reconnaissance force for the High Seas Fleet,: I raised this on the Roon article, but needs a slight change, as the HSF didn't technically exist under that name until 1907.
    • Good catch, I had forgotten to correct that here
  • She undertook training exercises and made several cruises in the Atlantic Ocean.: is this particularly notable for the lead? At least the first bit seems very much in the routine day-to-day for a warship.
    • I don't disagree that it's fairly routine, but the lead should summarize the article, and that line more or less sums up the ship's entire peacetime career, apart from the accidents
      • I might consider trimming the first bit: the Atlantic cruises do get a lot of airtime in the article, but I don't think we'd say that (for example) a famous doctor spent most of her career treating patients, or that a famous chef spent most of his cooking food. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose, but on the other hand, those are commonly understood professions - I know that the average reader knows much about what ships do routinely. But I've trimmed the training exercises bit.
  • Yorck was involved in several accidents, including an accidental explosion aboard the ship : I don't think we need to say that it was accidental twice.
    • Good point - trimmed (and a couple further down in the body as well)
  • The launch of the British battlecruiser HMS Invincible in 1907 quickly rendered all of the armored cruisers that had been built by the world's navies obsolescent: I'd suggest a brief comment here as to why -- that it was faster/tougher/had more firepower...
    • Added a footnote to explain this
  • Yorck was ordered under the provisional name Ersatz Deutschland: two different blue links next to each other not ideal, though maybe a necessary email here. Worth explaining what that name meant? Seems an oddly self-deprecating one to use.
    • There's an explanatory note, but I've moved it to right after the name to make it clearer - suffice it to say, Ersatz didn't have the WWII-era connotation then
  • General Wilhelm von Hahnke: why does he get an (approximated) English rank when von Pohl and Schmidt get (full) German ones?
    • Probably a visceral dislike for the army stemming from my own military service ;) I've added his rank at that time
  • christened Yorck after Ludwig Yorck von Wartenburg, a Prussian general during the Napoleonic Wars by Josephine Yorck von Wartenburg,: comma after Wars. Could consider a link to Napoleonic Wars.
    • Done (to both)
  • the Kaiser's Schießpreis (Shooting Prize): if you're going to keep the caps, I would also use a gloss template here -- otherwise, just treat it as a description and do "shooting prize", no quotes.
    • De-capped
  • Spithead, Britain, where it was received by the Royal Navy.: this is quite an odd way of giving a location in British terms -- suggest "the British port of Spithead". At the very least, "England" is better than "Britain".
  • a sortie into the central Baltic, as far north as Östergarn,: I might clarify that Östergarn is on the Swedish island of Gotland.
    • Good idea
  • Yorck's commander, KzS Pieper, believed the fog to have cleared sufficiently to allow the vessel to return to port, so he ordered the ship to get underway.: as in the last FAC, I think it would help to give an idea of how long he waited for this.
    • Updated
  • The naval historian V. E. Tarrant states that 127 out of a crew of 629 were rescued; ... Hans Hildebrand, Albert Röhr, and Hans-Otto Steinmetz concur with Gröner on the number of fatalities and note that 381 men, including Pieper, were rescued by the coastal defense ship Hagen.: I don't think we can use notes here, as it's clearly a matter of at least some dispute, under MOS:SAID: to use notes means that we're taking a position on that dispute (that Tarrant is wrong).
    • Changed to "add"
  • During a series of construction programs to expand the entrance to the Jade: to the what?
    • Whoops, that was an obvious link to have overlooked
      • The article says that it's now known as the "Jade Bight", which is probably clearer anyway (at least to those who know what a "bight" is).
  • Use circa templates to allow an explanation on mouseover.
    • I always forget to use that...
  • Dodson 2016 should come before Dodson 2018, surely?
    • Good catch
  • the Heimatflotte (Home Fleet) ... the High Seas Fleet: naming style is inconsistent here.
    • This is a little messy, since the fleet is more or less universally referred to as the High Seas Fleet in English, but references are generally to the Heimatflotte (presumably to differentiate it from the Home Fleet, which overlapped with its existence). I get that it's inconsistent to use the German name for one and the English for the other, but I've opted to follow the usage I've observed over consistency

More to follow, perhaps. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hildebrand 1993 -- the ASIN link goes to a 404. The page on ASINs says that a book's ASIN should be the same as its ISBN 10, which clearly isn't the case here.
    • Removed
      • Could we have an ISBN instead, or an OCLC, OL number or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oddly, no, not that I've been able to track down. These books were initially published in a 7-volume set, and at some point, were republished into the 10-volume paperback set I have. For whatever reason, the books don't list an ISBN, and Worldcat never updated their listings beyond the original 7-volume set.
  • Note C needs to be cited.
    • Good catch, added
  • Do you know anything about the "Commander Cleve" (imprisoned for a year over the ship's sinking, according to the NYT)? He isn't mentioned in the article, I don't think.
    • He's not mentioned in Hildebrand et. al. (or anywhere else I've seen - I'd assume he was the executive officer. He's also not listed on the List of admirals of Germany, so this incident didn't enhance his career, it would seem.
      • Maybe mention that an officer named Cleve was also imprisoned? I think it puts a different spin on the trial -- for one thing, it shows that the Navy didn't just throw the captain under the bus, or even entirely blame him, even though our account suggests that it was (entirely?) his fault. It would be ideal if we could give his position, but I don't think not having it is a reason not to include him in the story. I assume "Commander" can be readily back-engineered into German (one below Captain)? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could be more specific and say that the lead photograph is taken by the Levensau High Bridge in Schleswig-Holstein.
    • Added the Levensau High Bridge link, but I don't want it to get too wordy

I'll get the Support in now, on the assumption that the fairly minor issues above will be sorted: an excellent article that even I struggled to complain about. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your thorough review! Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • I would suggest adding alt text to the image captions.
    • Done
  • There is a typo in the caption for the image File:Yorck - Brassey's Naval Annual 1906.png – Sketch of Yorkby William Frederick Mitchell. It should read "Yorck" instead of "York", and a space should be inserted between "Yorck" and "by".
    • Good catch, fixed
  • File:NH 92713.jpg – Could you please verify whether the stated reason for this image being in the public domain is valid? MSincccc (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "She was laid down in 1903 at the Blohm & Voss shipyard in Hamburg, launched in May 1904, and commissioned in November 1905." Add the month she was laid down, if only for consistency.
    • Good catch
  • "which increased horsepower by 2,000 indicated horsepower (1,500 kW) and speed by 0.5 knots". I have problems with this, given that Yorck trialled at 20.4 knots while the Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers with which it is being compared managed 20 and 20.5 knots. Why not 'a decrease in speed of 0.1 knot'? I think a judicious use of 'was intended to' may be called for.
    • Good point - amusingly, none of the German armored cruisers made their intended speeds
  • "envisioned a force of twelve armored cruisers intended for overseas service". I am not sure that "envisioned" and "intended" works.
    • Where are you seeing that?
Oops. In Prinz Adalbert-class cruiser. Aplogies.
  • "the Kaiserliche Marine". Which is what in English?
    • It's translated in the lead
It needs translating at first mention in both the lead and the article.
I only see it in the lead - think this might have been another issue in Prinz Adalbert-class cruiser
  • "equipped with fewer guns and thinner but more comprehensive armor in a trade-off for higher speed and lower cost." Does this refer to Prinz Heinrich or Fürst Bismarck?
  • "all in individual mounts in the superstructure and in the hull." A pedant's point, but "and" → 'or'?
    • Fixed
  • "and reduced to 80 mm (3.1 in) on either end". Reduced, or tapering?
    • Tapering works for me
  • "major fleet exercises every autumn in late August and early September." Do we need "autumn" and "late August and early September"?
    • Not exactly (especially since neither August or most of September are part of the season), but that's how the annual German fleet maneuvers are generally referred to (for example, Hildebrand et. al. always uses "Herbstmanoever" and Sondhaus in Preparing for Weltpolitik refers to them as autumn maneuvers as well)
  • Link High Seas Fleet.
  • Introduce Prince Heinrich.
    • Good idea
  • "During this period, Erich Raeder served as the ship's navigation officer." This is notable why?
    • It's not, exactly, and could be trimmed
I would be happy to see it trimmed. Or to see it included, but Raeder's notability mentioned so a readet understands why he gets a mention. Your call.
I removed it, since he didn't do anything of note in the role, so it's probably into WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS territory
  • "The ship suffered an accident on 2 November when one of her pinnaces detonated a naval mine". Maybe say where this was.
    • Hildebrand doesn't say, unfortunately
  • "Yorck thereafter steamed to Kiel, where on 21 May she was decommissioned, the last armored cruiser to serve with I Scouting Group. She thereafter underwent an overhaul and was placed in reserve." "thereafter" as the second word of consecutive sentences. Maybe tweak one of them?
    • Fixed
  • Is there a link for "placed in reserve".
  • "providing distant support in the event that the raid provoked a British counterattack." I think that it was actually 'providing distant support in case that the raid provoked a British counterattack.' It was providing distant support regardless of whether there was a British counterattack.
    • Reworded, let me know what you think
  • "The pilot refused to take responsibility for maneuvering the ship". Could we have a brief in line explanation of who/what a pilot was, per MOS:NOFORCELINK ("Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.")?
    • Added an explanatory bit

Great stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog! Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two minor come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the excursion into Adalbert-class territory. It all looks good now. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it needed to be fixed, and that article is up next for FAC, so if you end up reviewing that one, you saved yourself a step then! Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Sources seem reliable and are consistently formatted, but couldn't do much spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a scan of Hildebrand et. al. handy if you want that to do any spotchecking (anything else would have to wait until tonight or tomorrow). Send me an email and I'll pass it along if you'd like, but it is in German. Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately I can read German. I'll send an email, but given that I am on vacation it might take a while to process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I hadn't thought to check your userpage to see if you had language boxes! You should have it in your inbox, but no rush, enjoy your vacation. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So 9-10, 12-13, folks can ask for more. In #9 it doesn't specify that Vigo was on the return trip? Is the 2nd November incident in p.123 worth mentioning - this article is super detailed. I think von Reuter served for October too? I kinda wonder that the formulations of the other accident (friendly collision) and the sinking seem to be very similar to the source. What is "paratyphusverdächtigen" - a synonym for foggy? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On #9 - check the second column on page 122 - it reads "...und auf der Vigo zum Kohlen angelaufen wurde." Or do you mean that it doesn't explicitly state that the purpose of coaling was for the return voyage to Germany? If so, I think it's a reasonable inference to make.
The 2 November incident is mentioned in the article - it's the last sentence of the second paragraph of the 1909–1913 section.
The list on p. 121 has Reuter serving from 9/1910 to 9/1912, I don't see him mentioned in the text
I'm not sure what you mean about the similarity to the the description of the accident with S178. The only close text I see are "Yorck was only slightly damaged in the accident and continued with the maneuvers" and "Yorck selbst trug nur unwesentlich Schaeden davon und konnte an der Verbandsuebungen weiter teilnehmen", which I've reworded.
On "paratyphusverdächtigen" - I'm not sure what they mean exactly, but given the context, I'd interpret it to be a metaphor for the water being "infected" with mines. It is a little odd though - Hildebrand et. al. generally don't use flowery language. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get the impression from the text that the Vigo coaling was necessarily during the return trip, rather than during any other stage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't, but the coal was necessary for the return trip, which is all the article states.
On the typhus - see the discussion with Ed below, I think now that it was actually legitimate concerns about typhus, not a metaphor (see the footnote on the last page of Hildebrand that discusses Pieper's later activities), so I've amended the article accordingly. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Lead

  • The wreck was dismantled progressively between the 1920s and 1980s to reduce the navigational hazard it posed.
Change wreck to wreckage -> A shipwreck is the event of a ship being destroyed or lost at sea, while ship wreckage refers to the physical remains of a wrecked ship.
I don't agree with that definition, nor does Merriam-Webster, which uses "wreck" as a noun as its first definition.
I agree, wreck is a noun as is shipwreck - beyond this I'm not following. If you disagree with the definition, then when does a shipwreck become wreckage? Pendright (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where we disagree is that the wrecked ship can be referred to as a wreck. That's definition 3.a in the link above. Wreckage can be used interchangeably in that sense, or it can also mean the fragments of a shipwreck. As an example, for HMS Hood, which was violently destroyed by sequential magazine explosions, I think your point would stand, since that ship was reduced entirely to "wreckage" in the latter definition of the word, but I think it's entirely reasonable to refer to a largely intact ship simply as a "wreck". Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed response. My follow-up research indicates that shipwreck and ship wreckage can encompass both the event and the physical remains, while ship wreckage is primarily focused on the physical debris. So, I stand corrected. Pendright (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Design

  • The two Roon-class cruisers were ordered in 1902 as part of the fleet expansion program specified by the Second Naval Law of 1900.
Roon Class is not hyphenated in the lead's opening sentence?
Right, because in the lead, "Roon" is an adjective modifying "class", whereas in the above sentence, "Roon-class" is a compound modifier for "cruisers".
  • The ship was propelled by three vertical triple-expansion steam engines, steam being provided by sixteen coal-fired water-tube boilers.
To improve the logical flow, consider rephrasing the above so that the steam generation (boilers) precedes the steam engines. Suggest: The ship's sixteen coal-fired water-tube boilers powered the three vertical triple-expansion steam engines that drove the three propeller shafts.
Works for me
Info box under Propulsion: 3 × screw propellers - see Propeller Drive shaft
I'm not sure what you're getting at here
Pointing out that screw and propeller mean the same thing. Pendright (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's something of a compromise for ship people who would refer to them simply as screws, and the average reader, who would be picturing screws. Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is one way to look at it, but it seems more like a rationalization.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style -> "Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language. Editors should structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting. Pendright (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that "screw propeller" is the proper name for the device (and the term is used pretty frequently at propeller (including at Propeller#Screw_propellers), so it should be consistent with our article on the subject, easily understood, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've researched several marine propulsion system sources–hard copy and digital–and all of them essentially provided the same information:
"'screw"' and "'propeller"' mean the same thing, but when a marine ship is described as having a "'screw propeller,"' it implies that it includes propeller blades, hub, and shaft as a single functional unit.
I bow to your wisdom. While lots of other people had Franks and Beans for lunch today, I had to eat Crow: it's humbling. Thank you and see you down the road. Supporting - Pendright (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I neglected to add to the above that my research also suggests that there does not seem to be a standard term for a propeller shaft. Even those in the marine industry use a variety of terms interchangeably. Pendright (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1909–1913

  • By early 1910, the new armored cruiser Blücher was ready for service with the fleet, and so now-VAdm Heeringen hauled down his flag from Yorck on 25 April and transferred to the new vessel two days later.
now-VAdm Heeringen??
The last time we saw Heeringen, he was a Konteradmiral
and transferred it to the new vessel
The thrust of the sentence is that Heeringen moved from Yorck to Bluecher, not specifically his flag
Not reader friendly - how about a footnote? - Pendright (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Easier to just simplify it to "Heeringen left Yorck on..."
  • Already on 16 May, Koch was replaced by KAdm Gustav Bachmann, who was in turn replaced by KAdm Maximilian von Spee on 15 September when Bachmann succeeded Heeringen as the group commander.

::Drop Already Pendright (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point of that was to underline the rapid shifting of officers - but am happy to discuss if you feel strongly about it
  • While in the shipyard for maintenance on 31 March 1911, a benzene explosion in the ship's aft-most boiler room killed one man and injured several, preventing Yorck from taking part in unit maneuvers.
While in a shipyard
Done
  • She visited Uddevalla, Sweden from 3 to 6 November during the cruise.
Why no comma after Sweden?
Good catch

World War I

  • The wreck, located between Horumersiel and Hooksiel, was initially marked to allow vessels to pass safely.
The wreckage
As per my first comment above
  • Beginning in 1926, the wreck was partially scrapped to reduce the navigational hazard to deeper-draft vessels. More work was done in 1936–1937 for the same reason.
the wreckage
  • During a series of construction programs to expand the entrance to the Jade Bight after World War II, the ship's turrets were removed in 1969 and the remaining parts of the hull were demolished in 1983 to further clear the sea floor.[12]
demolished and removed?
I don't know that anything was actually salvaged (apart from the turrets, of course). Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This it for now - Pendright (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to your response - Pendright (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Please look over the above responses. Pendright (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - Pendright (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The ed17

[edit]
  • "The launch of the British battlecruiser HMS Invincible in 1907 quickly rendered all of the armored cruisers that had been built by the world's navies obsolescent." - This sentence is in a strange location. It doesn't feel like it's in response to the previous sentence, nor does it lead into the next paragraph.
    • It is pretty jarring, I agree - added a bit to smooth the transition
  • I've made several copyedits that I'd appreciate getting your eye on for accuracy.
    • Those seem fine to me
  • For a general encyclopedic overview, the article seems too detailed at points when it comes to admirals using Yorck as their flagship and captains taking command. For example, I removed a sentence that covered flag admiral changes over a three-month period. Are those really necessary to get a proper understanding of how the German Navy employed this ship?
    • I see your point, but I generally prefer to include more information than less (and I have a somewhat vested interest in linking captains and commanders, as I have long-range plans to write bios, and having the links in the ship articles makes it easier to pull command details together). Is it encyclopedic? No, probably not. But this entire article wouldn't have been included in a traditional encyclopedia like Britannica (and indeed it isn't, but apparently Britannica's search function is blacklisted for some reason), so I have a hard time saying that certain details should be included because they're "encyclopedic" but others should be left out because they aren't. As much as we say we're writing encyclopedia articles, we (the Wiki community at large) very decidedly have not been doing that for probably two decades at this point. As a random example, Britannica's article on Earth is 19 pages, roughly, while en.wiki's is 32 pages - more than 50% longer. So again, I understand your point, but I don't think it reflects what the community is actually doing.
  • Conversely, what is KzS Pieper's full name? Is there any backstory that might explain the (what appears to be) reckless behavior in trying to clear a foggy minefield? Ed [talk] [OMT] 07:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Waldemar Pieper - perhaps somewhat amusingly, one of his recent commands, aboard SMS Blücher, resulted in him being court-martialed for dereliction of duty over an incident that saw Blücher run aground. As for why he was reckless, it seems to refer back to Jo-Jo's question above about the reference to "paratyphusverdächtigen" in Hildebrand. I had a look at the de.wiki article on Pieper, and it also references paratyphus, so it seems he actually had concerns about contaminated water. There's a footnote in Hildebrand that covers Pieper's post-sinking activities, and it does mention that the concerns about paratyphus were a mitigating factor in his court-martial. Thanks Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

I'll comment as I read, lead last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's thanks to those having commented before that I found nothing to complain. Support for FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda, I appreciate you taking the time to read through the article! Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2025 (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_Yorck/archive1&oldid=1300710697"