Talk:Franz von Hipper

Job performance

The contention that Hipper perfomed flawlessly at Jutland needs to be sourced. There are several sources who write that Hipper led the High Seas Fleet forward into a trap and failed in his duty to scout for the fleet.

Hipper's part in the German plan was to lead the British battlecruisers south onto the High Seas Fleet, not keeping pressing north like an imbecile and wind up stuck between Beatty and the Grand Fleet.

Bearing in mind the Hipper himself was trying to lead the Grand Fleet into a trap, your analysis of his performance is incomplete to say the least. For starters, you've neglected the fact that the battlecruiser action at the beginning of Jutland is generally known as "the run to the South" because Hipper was leading Beatty south towards the High Seas fleet, not "pressing north like an imbecile." Hipper only turned northwards after linking up with the main body of the fleet. Also, your statement is based on the benefit of hindsight, neither side was truely aware of what was going on at any particular point of the battle due to the flakyness of contempory signaling technology so. Hipper did exactly what he was supposed to at Jutland and a great deal more besides Getztashida 15:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say he was flawless. Jellicoe was essentially an Officer who was slightly used to pay his way out of his problems. Jellicoes subordinate was (somewhat) the property of Jellicoe. The "victor", Mr Scheer suffered a break-in, where the burglary was rather personal: His wife got killed, and his daughter injured. You are much so killed of in a slow fashion. The ship named after Scheer, got limping from Dikson Bay to Narvik, and back to Kiel already in 1942 (long before Stalingrad). Back to Franz Von Der Hipper, he was nobodys fool. --83.108.30.141 (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment

Though the first introductory sentence is accurate and concise, it is too short, in my personal opinion. I much prefer introductory sentences/paragraphs to include at least a tiny bit more about what the person is significant for, or which events/wars they took part in. Otherwise a fine start. Is further expansion possible? LordAmeth 02:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the Introduction somewhat. Is that more to your liking? 84.92.80.169 11:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Franz von Hipper/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to review this article, but it will have to wait until tomorrow, as I must currently retire for the night.

Well, here I am now, and here's the checklist: Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I will also note that a quick, precursory examination gives me reason to believe it does not meet any of the quick-fail criteria.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Problems there dealt with, now.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc: All edits in the history of the page seem harmonius enough. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have

fair use rationales: All images are appropriately licensed; no violations of copyright. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: All problems here have been assauged. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: If I had an 8 ball with me, I; believe all sides would point to YES! This article's passed! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns:

• Image captions:
  • "Admiral Hipper (center) with his staff in 1916. The second man from the left is Erich Raeder, the future Großadmiral during World War II." I could easily be mistaken, but I have doubts as to whether the bit about Raeder really matters, in context to the rest of the article. Plus, wouldn't it be better worded as "Second from left: Erich Raeder, the future Großadmiral during World War II."?
    • I think it's worth noting who he is, since he is very notable. I reworded the caption as you suggested though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "The sinking Blücher rolls over on her side", and "Seydlitz; heavily damaged during the battle of Jutland and attempting to limp home" - Somehow the first one seems too "announced", like it was being stated by a sports game announcer or something. And I just don't feel comortable with the "attempting to limp home" bit in the second; I don't know much about ships, but that just doesn't sound like the technical term for it. That's about all I can see which might be wrong with the images. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Those are the captions I used in the associated articles, both of which are FAs (SMS Blücher and SMS Seydlitz) - nobody objected to either of them. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Prose:
  • "Battle of Jutland:" It seems to me that something is missing at this point: "That morning, at ^[38] The British navy's Room 40 had intercepted and decrypted German radio traffic..." what is supposed to be the rest of that sentence before the inline citation? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Somehow it got mixed up, and the sentence got placed at the end of the paragraph. I fixed it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Coverage:
  • Depth of details: I don't know if all the details in the sections discussing the battles Hipper participated in need so much detail on what happened at precise moments in each combat. Isn't there a more general way to summarize the information while still making sense? I think I'll need a second opinion on this. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Those sections actually are significantly cut down - compare the Jutland section to the one on SMS Seydlitz, it's maybe a third of the size. The Dogger Bank section is also significantly shorter than the one in SMS Blücher. For instance, for Jutland, you have to discuss how Lützow was disabled to explain why Hipper had to transfer first to G39 and then to Moltke, and Scheer's actions explain why it took so long for Hipper to effect the transfer to Moltke. For Dogger Bank, you need to know that Blücher was being hammered by the British and that Seydlitz was badly damaged, which partially explains Hipper's decision to abandon Blücher. For example, take a look at the two bits on Seydlitz:

In SMS Seydlitz:

"Seydlitz was struck in her forecastle at 10:25, by a 13.5 in shell from Lion, but this hit did minor damage. At 10:40, Lion hit Seydlitz with a single 13.5 in (343 mm) shell, which holed the deck and penetrated the rear barbette. The shell itself failed to enter the barbette, but the explosion flashed into the working chamber and detonated the propellant charges inside.

In the reloading chamber, where the shell penetrated, part of the charge in readiness for loading was set on fire. The flames rose high up into the turret and down into the ammunition chamber, and thence through a connecting door, usually kept shut, through which men from the ammunition chamber tried to escape into the fore turret. The flames thus made their way through to the other ammunition chamber and thence up to the second turret, and from this cause the entire guns' crews of both turrets perished very quickly. The flames rose above the turrets as high as a house.

The explosion killed 159 men, and destroyed both of the rear turrets. The fire was prevented from spreading to the shell magazines, which could have destroyed the ship, by the quick action of the executive officer, who ordered both magazines be flooded. The Pumpenmeister Wilhelm Heidkamp was severely injured when he turned the red-hot valves to flood the magazines."

In this article:

"At 10:40, Lion hit Seydlitz with a single 13.5 in (343 mm) shell, which holed the deck and penetrated the rear barbette. The shell itself failed to enter the barbette, but the explosion flashed into the working chamber and detonated the propellant charges inside."

You also need to know how and why Beatty lost control of his ships, which essentially ended the battle. My point of view (not to be confused with POV) is that each section needs to present a reasonable complete picture of each sub-topic, or else readers are going to be confused. And to do that, you need some details to explain exactly what happened. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Massie reference?

Hello - I see that there are two citations mentioning "Massie", which I assume is Robert K. Massie. However, I do not see the book that is being referenced. Can someone more familiar with the gathering of the citations for this article please take a look at this? Here is the section of the article involved:

While the fleet was consolidating in Wilhelmshaven, however, war-weary sailors began deserting en masse.<ref>Massie, p. 774</ref> As ''Von der Tann'' and ''Derfflinger'' passed through the locks that separated Wilhelmshaven's inner harbor and roadstead, some 300 men from both ships climbed over the side and disappeared ashore.<ref name=M775>Massie, p. 775</ref>

Thanks, KConWiki (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's Castles of Steel - I'll add the full ref tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)