Talk:SMS Augsburg

Editing Comment

The article states that the ship ran into a minefield. Then it notes that the crew kept it afloat. Though it can be inferred that the ship struck a mine, the article never actually says so. This prompts questions such as, how did it manage to survive when mines often sank much larger warships? Djmaschek (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

German warships were as a rule internally subdivided better than British ships and thus better able to survive underwater damage - HMS Audacious was sunk by a single German mine, while SMS Goeben hit at least three British mines and survived. That said, Halpern doesn't go into any detail about the mine hit, and I haven't found anything else on it either. I have clarified that she hit a mine though - I had thought about that when I wrote it initially. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks interesting, reviewing incoming. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 16 January 2012 (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):

   Just a few spots of prose confusion

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:

• Lead:
  • Every sentence in the first paragraph (after the first) starts with "she" can we get a bit of variety here?
  • "On 2 August..." in what year?
  • "She was mined, once, in January 1915, though the ship was again operational..." I am pretty sure this means she hit a mine, but many non-military folks aren't going to get that on the first read ... is there a way we can rephrase so folks aren't thinking the ship was tunneled into for ore?
    • Should all be fixed.
• Service history:
  • "Augsburg and Lübeck were intended to lay a minefield near the entrance to the Gulf of Finland later that month..." the first part is awkward - can we rephrase somehow?
    • Have a look now and see if that's better.
  • First name for "Commodore von Karpf"? (I realize it may not be known..)
    • I haven't been able to track down his first name - he's referenced in SMS Regensburg, the GAN for which was just completed by User:MisterBee1966—he's usually a good source for this kind of thing (see for instance he had the first name for Commodore Heinrich also mentioned in that article), but he didn't say anything about Karpf's name. I'll ask him anyway, in case he overlooked it.
      • MisterBee came through - it's Johannes von Karpf. Parsecboy (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Karpf ordered the slower Albatross to seek refuge in neutral Swedish waters, while Augsburg and the torpedo boats used their high speed to escape the Russians. Albatross was badly damaged in the Battle of Åland Islands and ran aground in Swedish waters." The implication here is that this action was the Battel fo Aland Islands? Can we make this clearer? And also make it clearer that Augsburg escaped ... it's a bit confusing that you mention so much about Albatross here in the article about Augsburg - it might solve the confusion to just drop the bit about albatross here.
    • Reworded a bit - the loss of Albatross is the main result of the operation - I don't know that it'd be right to omit it.
  • "The Russian submarine Okun fired two torpedoes at Augsburg on the night of 28 June, though both missed.[11] The ship was assigned to the forces that took part in the..." "the ship" in the second sentence could be confusing as the subject of the previous sentence is the Okun, can we rephrase?
    • Fixed.
  • "The Russians had by this time withdrawn to Moon Sound, and the threat of Russian submarines and mines in the Gulf prompted the Germans to retreat." Okay, if the Russians withdrew - why did the Germans feel the need to retreat? Confusing.
    • The Russians left submarines and mines in the Gulf - I tweaked this so hopefully it's a little clearer.
  • "...she had been assigned to the VI Scouting Group along with her sister Kolberg and Strassburg." Odd phrasing - suggest "she had been assigned to the VI Scouting Group along with Strassburg and her sister Kolberg."
    • Fixed per your suggestion.

The usual 7 day hold, etc. etc. You know the drill. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo missing

There's a good photo of this ship on German Wiki: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Augsburg_(1909) Sca (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no good source for the photo, just a link to a website that surely doesn't hold the copyright. Which means we can't use the image here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)