Talk:German cruiser Emden/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dolphin51 (talk · contribs) 10:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead

It says she was armed with a main battery of surplus 15 cm guns. At this point, the sentence should be about the main battery of 15 cm guns. The fact that they were surplus is only of secondary importance, especially as readers are likely to be puzzled as to how a gun installed in a new warship can be described as surplus. I suggest the word surplus should be omitted or moved to a point later in the sentence where it speaks about being left over from WWI. If it is retained, some explanation of what surplus means in this context would be good.

Top speed of 29 kn. There is a blue link available for knots.

Did E. lay minefields, or mines? I thought that when a lot of mines have been laid, a minefield has been created. Either way, a blue link should be used to explain what it is. Similarly, a blue link is available to explain what a bomber is.

She was damaged by a British bomber that crashed into the ship. I suggest crashed into her. Dolphin (t) 06:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree - the fact that the guns were surplus is the relevant detail, more so than the caliber of the guns, in that it is an example of how the design was affected by the Allied disarmament commission, along with the arrangement. As it is, the word is on the other side of the gun type from the "left over from World War I" bit. I would hope that the "left over from World War I" line is sufficient explanation of how they were surplus.

Links to knot, naval mine and bomber added, and "the ship" -> "her". As for minefields vs. mines, there's really no difference in meaning, either would work. Parsecboy (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You know what a surplus 15 cm gun is; and I think I have a fairly good idea of what is meant; but many readers will be puzzled, especially as there is no blue link to allow readers to explore further to find out about a surplus gun.

Is there any difference between a surplus gun, and a gun left over from WWI; or is this sentence saying the same thing twice?

The reason I am challenging a sentence, and a word in a sentence, is because the lead section is critical to the value of the entire article. The lead must be completely devoid of ambiguity. It should flow smoothly so readers can read it without having to stop and re-read, or puzzle over a meaning. These considerations are not so relevant to the remainder of the article. Dolphin (t) 02:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's the same thing. I don't think readers will have a hard time figuring out that a surplus gun is a gun that is left over from WWI stocks. If they don't know what the word surplus means, there isn't much I can do to help them, apart from linking most words in the article to Wiktionary entries. Parsecboy (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If the two are the same thing, that is good. It isn't necessary to repeat the sentiment. (That would be like referring to a four-legged quadruped.) It will be sufficient for the sentence to refer to a main battery of 15 cm guns left over from WWI. Dolphin (t) 03:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

General characteristics

The first para says The she had an armored belt … Dolphin (t) 02:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Machinery

It states 300 metric tons of coal is equal to 300 long tons; and 200 metric tons of oil is equal to 200 long tons. Dolphin (t) 07:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Armament

It says The main battery was to have been eight guns in twin turrets, but the ... refused to permit this armament. It appears that the Allied disarmament authority did not allow twin turrets, but did allow the same number of guns, and the same calibre, in single turrets. It is misleading to say the authority did not permit this armament.

Note that the planned guns were a longer, new model gun, in addition to being arranged in a more efficient manner. Longer barrel means higher muzzle velocity, longer range, and better penetration power. Although the same caliber, the longer barrel gun is significantly more powerful. Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Saying The guns were supplied with 960 rounds of ammunition is potentially ambiguous because it could mean 960 rounds per gun. Would it be appropriate naval language to say The ship carried 960 rounds of ammunition or The ship carried 960 15cm shells? Dolphin (t) 07:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See how it reads now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Service history

In the first para, in two places, there is the expression series of modifications were made .... A series is singular so it should be series of modifications was made. Alternatively, it could say one of the following:

modifications were made

some modifications were made

many modifications were made

further modifications were made

Fixed.

In the first para, the last sentence says for further modifications in 1936; ... the third anti-aircraft gun was added at this point. The expression at this point is redundant.

Removed.

A blue link is available for degaussing.

Added.

The second para says after the outbreak of the war a degaussing coil was installed and then E. laid mines on 3 September. This sentence is not compatible with dates given elsewhere in Wikipedia saying Germany attacked Poland on 1 September, and France and Britain declared war on 3 September.

I don't know what you're talking about. The war began with the German invasion on 1 September, Britain and France joined it on the 3rd. There's nothing contradictory in this article.

The outbreak of war occurred on either 1st or 3rd of September. After the outbreak, E. was modified by installation of a degaussing coil, readied for a minelaying exercise, positioned herself in the North Sea off the coast of Germany and carried out the minelaying exercise on 3rd of September! I know German engineers and sailors are quick, but that is so quick it defies credibility! Perhaps the degaussing coil was installed prior to the outbreak of the war. If the words After the outbreak of war were removed it would look entirely reasonable.Dolphin (t) 00:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what the source says; what you're proposing is original research and is completely unacceptable. The exact quote is "Following the outbreak of war, in September 1939, a degaussing coil to protect against magnetic mines was added...", followed by the description of the minelaying operation and the subsequent British air attack - the minelaying operation on 3 September is corroborated by Rohwer, a highly regarded naval historian. Parsecboy (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I see the problem: Williamson, p.10 says a degaussing coil was installed after the outbreak of the war. Rohwer, p.2 says E. participated in mine laying in the North Sea on 3 September. I assumed the two sentences were in chronological order but that isn't necessarily so. It is conceivable that E. participated in mine laying within hours of the outbreak of war, and the degaussing coil was installed later. Does Williamson specify the date on which the coil was installed? I will assume Williamson doesn't specify a date, so I suggest the two sentences should be reversed to say E. participated in mine laying on 3 September (the day of outbreak of the war) and subsequently had a degaussing coil installed. Dolphin (t) 05:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Williamson puts the degaussing coil before the minelaying operation on 3 September. Look, unless you come up with a reliable source to say Williamson has it wrong, I'm not going to change it. We don't operate on what you or anyone else thinks is or is not believable. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

When working on Wikipedia we find many, many examples where something that is stated in one source is not compatible with something else said in another source. It happens all the time. We can't simply publish both without acknowledging the problem, especially if the result is nonsense. For example, if one source says a famous historical character was born at the end of the 16th century, and another source says he was born at the beginning of the 17th century, we can't simply imply he was born twice, even though there are high quality sources for both dates. We could say the date of his birth is unclear but it is known to have been either at the end of one or the beginning of the other; and then use an Explanatory Note to present details of what is said in the two sources. Wikipedia is presently saying the war broke out when B. and F. declared war on G. on 3 September, subsequent to that, E. was modified by installation of a degaussing coil and then she sailed to the North Sea where she laid a minefield, all before midnight on 3 September! (Do you know what is involved in installing a degaussing coil?) Good articles do not contain stark inconsistencies like that, even though there might be two good sources to support the two, inconsistent, pieces of information. If this article is to make its way to GA this inconsistency must be satisfactorily resolved. Dolphin (t) 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've written scores of articles on Wikipedia, two dozen of which are FAs, and several scores more are GA or A class. I am a history PhD candidate. You don't need to lecture me about reconciling contradictory material. According to Wikipedia policy, we have to report what reliable sources say. Williamson states that the ship was outfitted with a degaussing coil after the outbreak of war, followed by a minelaying operation on 3 September. The minelaying operation is corroborated by Rowher and other sources. It doesn't matter a damn what date Wikipedia says World War II began—several years ago, the World War II article said that the war began in 1937 in Asia with the Second Sino-Japanese War. Should this article have been changed to reflect that the war had apparently been going on for 2 years by the time the degaussing coil was installed? Regardless, Germany was in a state of war with Poland on 1 September, that Britain and France hadn't yet joined is irrelevant. Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, we don't have contradictory material. We have one set of information, and your claims that it's wrong. Until you come up with something more substantial, this discussion is moot. Parsecboy (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Sturmvogel 66 for assistance. See User talk:Sturmvogel 66#Request for assistance. Dolphin (t) 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

According to HRS she was back in the Reichsmarinewerft in Wilhelmshaven in December 1939 (about one month; I get you the exact dates when I have access to my books later this weekend). The type of work done is not stated. Maybe this is linked? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Side note: I recall reading that Emden was the 100th ship built by the Reichsmarinewerft and that the christening speech was held by Hans Zenker. I will also try to confirm this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MisterBee. Any information of that kind will be very helpful. Dolphin (t) 11:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The following is my translation of the chronology from early September 1939 to early 1940 (HRS v3 page 57). Minelaying began on 3 Sep 1939 in the North Sea together with Grille, Karl Galster, Hans Lody under further protection from Seeadler and Wolf. On her return to Wilhelmshaven on 4 September 1939 she came under attack from British bombers. Emden shot down one aircraft which crashed into the side of Emden. A number of bombs (not quantified) nearly hit her. Emden suffered 10 casualties (2 officers and 8 sailors) one of which died the next day; these were the first German casualties in the North Sea area of operations. She was then transferred to the Baltic Sea for operations against merchant shipping. She went back to the Reichsmarinewerft in Wilhelmshaven from 2 December 1939 to 3 January 1940 before doing service as a training ship prior to being assigned to Operation Weserübung. My memory did not fail me (see HRS v3 pp.38,55), the speech was held by Admiral Hans Zenker and the christening was performed by Jutta von Müller, the widow of Kapitän zur See Karl von Müller who had commanded Emden (1909) from May 1913 to November 1914.MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

British bombers attacked the ship twice and damaged badly. Word missing. Dolphin (t) 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.

Please don't forget to mention that Lothar von Arnauld de la Perière commanded her from September 1928 until October 1930 MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have the page number (I'm guessing from HRS)? Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

How did you guess? You must have psychic powers. HRS volume 3 page 54. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

According to his article he was promoted to Captain in 1931, so I'm guessing he was Korvettenkapitän at the time? Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually he held three ranks during his command of Emden, first Korvettenkapitän, then Fregattenkapitän and last Kapitän zur See. The dates for promotion are not stated MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The final para begins Emden departed Pillau on 1 February, It should also include the year. Dolphin (t) 10:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Images and disambiguation pages

Three images checked. All adequately licenced.

No disambiguation pages have been identified. Dolphin (t) 10:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Chronology

There is currently an element of dispute over the following pair of sentences in the section Service history:

After the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, a degaussing coil was installed just above the waterline to protect the ship from magnetic mines. (Source: Williamson, p. 10) Her first wartime operation saw her participating in laying a minefield off the German coast in the North Sea on 3 September. (Source: Rohwer, p.2)

My view is that this arrangement is unsatisfactory in a Good Article because it implies strongly that the degaussing coil was installed early in September 1939 but prior to 3 September 1939. One of the sources, Williamson p.10, is relevant. Apparently Williamson says the degaussing coil was installed after the outbreak of the war, but he does not nominate the date on which it was installed. (Not surprising - a degaussing system is likely to take many days to install and test.) I think it is unreasonable to take Williamson's words and treat them as evidence that the degaussing system was installed on 1, 2 or 3 September. Williamson's words after the outbreak of the war are vague, and probably intentionally so.

If Williamson has written other things about installation of the coil, and the date on which it was installed, those things appear not to be included in the pertinent paragraph. Users interested in this article are welcome to add new and pertinent information to clarify the chronology.

My current objection will disappear if the two sentences are reversed to say something like:

Emden's first wartime operation saw her participating in laying a minefield off the German coast in the North Sea on 3 September. (Source: Rohwer, p.2) After the outbreak of the war a degaussing coil was installed just above the waterline to protect the ship from magnetic mines. (Source: Williamson, p. 10)

This arrangement of the sentences is suitably vague about the time of installation of the degaussing coil to match Williamson's vagueness on the matter. Dolphin (t) 06:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)

I think that is a reasonable suggestion. I googled a bit and maybe the following book gives more insight into this topic

• Whitley, Mike J. (2001). Deutsche Kreuzer im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 3613012073

Unfurtunately I don't own this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MisterBee. I appreciate your support in getting this article to GA.Dolphin (t) 11:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now found three possibilities that will cause my current objection to disappear:

1.Emden's first wartime operation saw her participating in laying a minefield off the German coast in the North Sea on 3 September. (Source: Rohwer, p.2) After the outbreak of the war a degaussing coil was installed just above the waterline to protect the ship from magnetic mines. (Source: Williamson, p. 10)

2.Emden's first wartime operation saw her participating in laying a minefield off the German coast in the North Sea on 3 September. (Source: Rohwer, p.2) Prior to that, a degaussing coil was installed just above the waterline to protect the ship from magnetic mines. (Source: Williamson, p. 10)

3. Leave these two sentences exactly as they are, and add an Explanatory Footnote explaining what the sources say, so readers can see the details and explain the paradox for themselves.
Dolphin (t) 07:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.