Talk:Battle of the Strait of Otranto (1917)

Note re: forces in the infobox

I included the Sankt Georg and accompanying two destroyers because while they did not actively participate in the battle, their presence prompted the Allied withdrawal, and so can be considered to be pretty important to the outcome of the battle. Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

There is no mention of who won this battle or what consquences it had.Without this information it is difficult if not imposible to place this batle within the larger context of thw world war —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidg11 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it was an oversight on my part. I've added a paragraph that sums up the results of the battle, and makes clear that it was a tactical AH victory. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Strait of Otranto (1917)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review of this version:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the "Disposition" section, first paragraph, the sentence beginning A supporting force composed of… is a sentence fragment
   • There are a lot of customary units (miles, inches, etc.) that should be converted.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just the one prose issue and the unit conversions keep it from passing. One suggestion that might be helpful for A-Class or higher assessment might be a "Background" section that gives a little more context for the Otranto Barrage. The lead does a nice job summarizing it, but about a paragraph more would help. Also, you might look into Paul G. Halpern's book The Battle of the Otranto Straits: Controlling the Gateway to the Adriatic in World War I, which focuses specifically on this battle. Also, the publisher's website calls it the "largest naval engagement in the Mediterranean" (not just the Adriatic). — Bellhalla (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Yeah, I think you're right about adding a background section. That might have to wait until I can get my hands on Halpern's book (it's been on my Amazon wishlist for some time now :) I fixed the run-on sentence you found, and converted the standard units I could find. Is there anything else? Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

All looks good, so I'm passing it. The only other issue I can see of is perhaps the name of the article. When I did a google search on the current name (less "wikipedia") it comes up with 2 hits (one of which is a WP mirror). A search (again, less "wikipedia") on the name used in the title of Halpern's book, Battle of the Otranto Straits, comes up with about 1,610 hits, but most seem to be connected to the book.

Also, at the IU Press link (above) the book was under $8.00 (and new, no less!) as of last night when I looked. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had considered the name when I started the article, but I chose the current one so that it would match the format of Battle of the Strait of Otranto (1940). I wouldn't be opposed to renaming it though, since it does seem to be much more widely used.

Maybe I'll just get the book for myself :) Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about the 1940 battle in the results. But, then again, there is only one non-WP-mirror link for either battle under the current name... — Bellhalla (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

During the battle many allied drifter crews were rescued and taken as POWs. My uncle's story tells all. How can I add it to further reading please? Althepal2 (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Opinions

Not so sure Halpern's personal opinion "The raid risked some of the most advanced units of the Austro-Hungarian fleet on an operation that offered minimal strategic returns" should be on an encylopaedic page. I think the Austro-Hungarian naval command would have been in a far better position than him to decide whether this was so. Moreover, it is simply untrue to say that these were all "advanced units" of the fleet. The support ship, "Saint George" was an old-fashioned armoured cruiser launched in 1903. Only the three rapid cruisers could have been considered 'modern'. In any case, had the naval command really wanted to despatch a "most advanced" fleet to attack the blockade and any of its supporting naval ships they could have sent any number of battleships, including dreadnaughts. I do not think the Austro-Hungarian navy saw this as a major operation and the losses and near losses were all on the Allied side meaning the strategic returns were not "minimal" at all.86.170.246.207 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Halpern is a noted naval historian, you are not. Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)