Talk:German cruiser Deutschland/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk • contribs • count) 16:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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:

• Three disambiguations need fixing

• Deutschland (disambiguation)
• Halifax, Nova Scotia
• Palma

• The second two have been fixed, the first is a result of the dab link at the top of the page and cannot be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Facts

• Deutschalnd was ordered and built by the Weimar Republic not Nazi Germany. Shouldn't this be mentioned?
• "She was laid down at the Kriegsmarinewerft shipyard in Wilhelmshaven". The Reichsmarine became the Kriegsmarine in 1935. Deutschland was laid down in 1929!? Something is wrong here
• "Deutschland was ordered by the Kriegsmarine" Same problem
• "The ship was commissioned into the Kriegsmarine on 1 April 1933" again

• Thanks, I don't know why I mixed those up - should all be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the infobox be updated as well? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Do you mean the header with the flag? I tried it with both listed in the header and it just makes it jumbled and confused looking - I suppose we could have two boxes, but I don't know if that would be the best alternative, given that we normally use multiple boxes for ships that changed ownership during their career. If we just stick with one, I think it should stay as it is, since the ship is most known for serving during the war (and indeed spent only 2 of her 12 years in commission with the Reichsmarine). Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• The Reichstag had a lengthy debate. The alternatives were Type A, Type B and Type C. Where is this discussed?

• This should be in the class article, which I'm currently reworking - I'd appreciate any info you have for that. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• I sent you an email MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• "The ship accidentally started sliding down the slipway before Hindenburg could give his christening speech." I believe this to be wrong. The christening speech was given by Reichspräsident Heinrich Brüning. The steel towing broke while Brüning was giving his speech. The ship starting moving unplugging the loudspeakers ending his speech prematurely. The band starting playing the national anthem and Hindenburgs spoke the following words: "So fahre denn hin in dein Element; ich taufe dich Deutschland" — "So drive into your element, I christen thee Deutschland". See HR&S volume 2 page 255.

• Fixed - I trust HR&S more than Williamson. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• commander August Thiele received the Knight's Cross during his command of Lützow. This should be mentioned.

• Do you have a citation? He isn't mentioned in any of my sources. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Manfred Dörr page 282 it states in German (here my translation). KzS Thiele received the KC for his leadership of Kampfgruppe V (5th battle group) during the occupation of Oslo. Thiele took command of the battle group after the sinking of Blücher. According to Scherzer the official KC citation states KC on 18 January 1941 as KzS and commander of heavy cruiser Lützow. I cited all this on Thiele's article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Added now. Parsecboy (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Lützow was mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht on 9 February 1945. Shouldn't this be mentioned?

• Should be - can you provide me the text of the Wehrmachtberict? Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Here you go

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation
9 February 1945	[Der schwere Kreuzer "Lützow" und die Torpedoboote T 33, T 28 und T 8 unterstützten am 8. Februar durch ihr wirkungsvolles Feuer die tapfer kämpfende Besatzung von Elbing. Ferner nahm dieser Verband sowjetische Stellungen und Aufmarschstraßen am Frischen Haff unter schweren Beschuß.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) reference Die Wehrmachtberichte 1939-1945 Band 3, p. 437.	The heavy cruiser "Lutzow" and the torpedo boats T 33, T 28 and T 8 supported on 8 February through their effective fire the bravely fighting crew of Elbing. Furthermore, this task force took Soviet positions and deployment streets on the Vistula Lagoon under heavy bombardment.

• Thanks, added to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• "The Soviet Navy raised the ship in September 1947 and broke her up for scrap in 1948–1949" HR&S volume 6 page 25 contest this theory! They claim that the ship scrapped was actually the former Admiral Hipper Class Lützow. According to HR&S Lützow never made it to Kronstadt. She sank near Kolberg

• The fate of the Admiral Hipper class Lützow is unclear, but it seems she survived until at least 1953, though some accounts place her dismantling as late as 1960. See that article for the various claims. I have added the statement by HR&S and noted the discrepancy however. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Another data point for you: In the summer of 1944 Thiele (now admiral) had ordered Lützow to prepare for Operation Tanne West which was called of after the situation in Finland had stabilized. In this timeframe her anti aircraft capabilities were augmented by replacing the 2cm guns with 4cm guns. Lützow was part of August Thiele's II. Kampfgruppe as of 28 July 1944. In early 1945 she participated in the battles of East Prussia together with Prinz Eugen, Admiral Scheer and various torpedo boats. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Regarding the references of HR & S, be careful and note that the Deutschland is covered in volume 2 and Lützow is covered in volume 6. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm not sure how I managed to switch that. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• The German wiki article tells another story about the fate of Deutschland/Lützow. The reference they use is Panzerschiff Deutschland, Schwerer Kreuzer Lützow by Hans G. Prager see amazon.de. I don't own this book MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I managed to buy this book for 5 Euros. Wow, this book has so much detail. The author, Hans Georg Prager, had served on Deutschland/Lützow. We have her fate all wrong. The book goes into much detail, incl. pictures, of her sinking. She was sunk by the Soviets. I have to read the book first before I can give you help on this. Did you know that Bremse was built as a testbed for the engines. A lot of smart engineering went into the C/28 tripple turrets. The result was a higher rate of fire than even contemporary double turrets. A lot of info on crew structure all the way down to the cook and barber is also available. I can only say it is a must for the next quality level. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• That's excellent. I had read that Bremse was built as an engine testbed, but not about the C/28 turrets. A lot of that information will be better placed in the class article (which I have finished up to where my sources end - I'm sure there'll be quite a bit to add from Prager). Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• I shouldn't have started reading Prager :-) "The RAF made another failed attack two days later, but on 16 April, a force of eighteen Lancasters scored a single hit and several near misses on Lützow with Tallboy bombs in the Kaiserfahrt" He claims that Lützow was attacked by a blend of Tallboys and 250kg bombs. None of the Tallboys actually had hit Lützow directly, but one very near miss ripped her open. She was hit by 250kg bombs. One of the 250kg bombs even had penetrated into the 28cm munition storage but failed to explode. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Question: This problem just occurred to me and I want to know how you feel about this. Deutschland was originally classified as a Panzerschiff by the Reichsmarine. The Kriegsmarine reclassified her as a heavy cruiser and renamed her Lützow. Therefore shouldn't the article name be "German Panzerschiff Deutschland" or "German cruiser Lützow"? Mixing her Reichsmarine class name with the Kriegsmarine ship name doesn't make sense to me (or vice versa). MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• That's a good question. WP:NC-SHIPS generally advises generic ship types rather than specific, which to me would favor retaining "cruiser" over "Panzershiff." Maybe we should put this question to a wider audience at WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS to see what other people think would be best. Parsecboy (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• I posted the question. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Concluding summary I believe the article should be passed at GA level. However, moving forward the entire fate section needs to be reworked because it does not match the Prager, who based his work on the Russian archives. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)