Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/SMS Westfalen
SMS Westfalen
[edit]- This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add
{{collapse top|Previous nomination}}to the top of the discussion and{{collapse bottom}}at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.
The result was: not scheduled by Wehwalt (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
SMS Westfalen was a Nassau-class dreadnought battleship built for the German Imperial Navy. Laid down in 1907, and launched in July 1908, she was commissioned into the High Seas Fleet in November 1909. The ship was equipped with a main battery of twelve 28 cm (11 in) guns in six twin turrets using an unusual hexagonal arrangement. Westfalen saw extensive service in the North Sea in the early years of World War I. In the early hours of 1 June 1916, the ship was heavily engaged in fighting against British light forces during the Battle of Jutland, severely damaging several British destroyers. On another fleet sortie in August 1916, the ship was damaged by a torpedo from a British submarine. Later in the war, Westfalen participated in sorties into the Baltic Sea against the Russian Navy, and to support the White Finns in the Finnish Civil War. The ship was ceded to the Allies after the war and broken up in 1924. (Full article...)
- Most recent similar article(s): The last German ship was SMS Niobe on 19 December 2024, the last battleship was Japanese battleship Tosa on 9 February 2025
- Main editors: Parsecboy
- Promoted: 7 September 2010
- Reasons for nomination: Promoted nearly fifteen years ago, there is a significant backlog of ship FAs that have not yet run, 16 other language WPs have an article on this ship indicating worldwide interest, the date nominated for the article to run is the anniversary of her role in major fighting in the early hours of 1 June 1916 during the Battle of Jutland
- Support as nominator. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- Suppoer as author. The article should be in good shape, and I made a fairly significant update over the last couple of days to incorporate some sources I didn't have access to when I initially wrote the article. A minor disclaimer: there's a page needed tag that I added yesterday for a book that's sitting on my library shelf, but don't have access to as I'm currently traveling. I'll sort it out when I return next week (I'll also be working the Dodson & Cant book into the article as well). Parsecboy (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I'd rather run Namco on this date, since it's got a nice multiple-of-10 anniversary of its founding date. I would be fine with running the ship on a different date in June, or on June 1st of next year, when it will also have a nice round multiple-of-10 anniversary. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Namco has a better claim to June 1st, since its the 70th anniversary. This ship's claim for the date is a bit more hazy, and we should probably use the ship's date for when it was laid down or launched instead. I'm not familliar enough with ships to know which is more formally considered the "birth" of a ship. There is a glut of ship articles, and we should probably run one a month for the forseeable future anyways. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Harizotoh9: Did you intend to oppose this nomination? Your comment is written like an oppose but you didn't explicitly say so. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Namco has a better claim to June 1st, since its the 70th anniversary. This ship's claim for the date is a bit more hazy, and we should probably use the ship's date for when it was laid down or launched instead. I'm not familliar enough with ships to know which is more formally considered the "birth" of a ship. There is a glut of ship articles, and we should probably run one a month for the forseeable future anyways. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose the June 1 date in favor of Namco, although this would be a splendid TFA on a different date. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: Even then, if we ran this on June 1st, 2026, it would be a rounder anniversary for the 1916 battle. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)