Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Action of 28 January 1945

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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.
Closing as consensus to promote, Woody (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 28 January 1945

edit
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)


This article on the last engagement between British and German warships off Norway during World War II was assessed as a GA in December last year and has since been improved. As such, I think that it now meets the A class criteria and would appreciate other editors' views on this. Nick-D (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: looks pretty good to me, but I'm not really a subject matter expert:
    • no dabs, ext links all work, alt text is present (no action required);
    • images appear correctly licenced (no action required);
    • the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations (no action required);
    • in the lead Kriegsmarine is in italics, but later it isn't - should this be consistent?
      • WP:MOS#Italics isn't terribly clear on this, but on the grounds that 'Kriegsmarine' is an uncommon foreign word I've italicised it throughout the article.
    • I might have missed it, but why did Hetz have to take command of the flotilla after Z31 was damaged - I assumed von Wangeheim was aboard Z31? This doesn't appear to be explained though - perhaps a clause could be added to the first sentence?
      • Annoyingly, none of sources explain why. I'd imagine that it was either because the damage to Z31 meant that she was no longer capable of acting as the command ship or that von Wangenheim was wounded.
    • this seems a little ineligant to me: "The ship's speed was not affected, however.[10] Casualties were heavy, with 54 of Z31's crew being killed and another 24 wounded." Perhaps reword to: "The ship's speed was not affected,[10] but casualties were heavy, with 54 of Z31's crew being killed and another 24 wounded.";
      • Done
    • in the infobox it mentions 55 Germans killed, but in the prose only 54 are mentioned - was there another killed, or is the infobox incorrect?
      • 55 is the correct number - I've just fixed this.
    • The last sentence of the battle section might be better placed in the Aftermath (possibly as the first sentence in the third paragaph?): "The battle was the last action to be fought between British and German warships in Norwegian waters during World War II";
    • in the Aftermath, this might be a little smoother: "Z31 received initial repairs at Bergen which included removing the wreckage of her forward turret." Perhaps try: "At Bergen, Z31 received initial repairs, which included removing the wreckage of her forward turret."
      • That's much better
    • I'm not sure about the capitalisation of the title in the Cunningham work, specifically "and two bars". I think that WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles would probably ask for "...and Two Bars". AustralianRupert (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed for GA and only have a few minor points:
    • No errors revealed by the citation check tool (no action required).
    • In the lead: "This battle was the last of many", you might consider "The battle" (only a suggestion - it just sounds better to my ear).
      • That sounds better to me as well
    • "the British cruisers fired star shells" Why? I assume it was either a signal or to provide illumination but lacking a naval background I'm a little uncertain of the tactics.
      • Yes, for illumination purposes - I've tweaked this
    • "and the three ships laid smoke screens" I think they did so to conceal their escape but I wonder if this should be clarified? Is it assuming too much knowledge of a reader? I'll leave it up to you as I accept I might be being a bit picky here. It seems fairly obvious why a ship would lay a smoke screen (for obscuration) but I'll ask the question nonetheless. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good point - I've clarified this. It seems best to assume that readers have limited, or no, knowledge of naval tactics (and particularly the technical aspects of these tactics). Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • General point is that I find it a bit on the small side for A-Class; it’s easily GA but a bit more borderline for anything higher IMO. On the other hand I can’t imagine you’ve left too much out, since there probably isn't a helluva lot to describe, and as an account of an action that was probably relatively routine apart from the significance of being the last of its kind in the war, it’s well done.
      • Yes, given that this was a fairly brief and inconclusive battle, not much has been written about it (and I've conducted a very extensive search for references in the ADFA Library). I'm not planning on taking this to a FAC unless I can find a more detailed source.
        • I'm happy that the article's got a bit more fat on it than when I first reviewed; had a quick look at the changes and no prose issues leapt out -- well done working Black Friday into it too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As usual, structure, prose, referencing and supporting materials look fine. A few specific things (I actually read and made notes on this a few days ago but am only just now adding them here, apologies if anything's been overtaken by recent edits)...
    • Battle:
      • Any more info on that first air attack, like any hits sustained by the Germans?
        • No damage to the ships or the composition of the attack force is recorded in any of the sources. On the basis of my Black Friday (1945)-associated reading, I'd guess that the destroyers were attacked by one of the small forces of aircraft which patrolled the Norwegian coast as these sources explicitly say that there were almost no major anti-shipping operations during January 1945 and this wasn't one of the attacks were were identified.
      • ”Z31 suffered heavy damage early in the battle” – maybe “extensive damage”, since you use “heavy” casualties soon after.
        • Fixed
      • ”She was struck by seven 6 in (150 mm) shells which caused her to catch fire, damaged her hydrophone compartment and torpedo transmitting stations, and destroyed her forward gun turret” -- Forgive the pedantry but "which" should generally be preceded by a comma, and "that" used otherwise; either would work here, I think.
        • Pedantry is good - fixed
      • ”This led to a running battle in which Mauritius sustained a hit which did not cause any casualties and Diadem was struck by a shell six minutes later which killed one man and wounded three” – Again, should use “that” for the second and third “which”s (you already have “in which” earlier, anyway).
        • Fixed
    • Aftermath:
      • ” During the early morning of 28 January” – Is "during” useful here? How about “Early in the morning of 28 January”?
        • That's an improvement
      • Reckon “dissatisfied” reads a bit better than “unsatisfied”.
        • Fixed
      • I think BritEng takes double “l” in “labeled”.
        • I think that that sentence sucked, and have just tweaked it (since when does the head of the wartime RN 'label' things? What was I thinking?)
    • References:
      • I think in WP terms “Notes” or “Citations” work better here than “Footnotes”, but not a showstopper.
        • Done
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • What's a transmitting station?
    • The place where the computers which were used to aim the torpedoes was located: [1] - this was the name of the station, and I can't see anything sensible to link to
      • Then create an entry in the glossary of nautical terms, so people will know what you're talking about
        • Done (I didn't even know that that article existed!)
  • FYI, knots are automatically converted by the template into miles and kilometers; you needn't specify them
    • OK, thanks for that. The convert template is getting rather complex...
  • This is just me, but I really don't see any point in abbreviating short units like miles, etc.
    • Tweaked
  • Whitley, German Destroyers of WW Two, says that the cruisers opened fire at about 20,000 meters, or 12.5 miles. He's got some info on where the cruisers were hit, but otherwise matches your account. He also says that the destroyers were attacked west of Sognefjord by the aircraft on 27 Jan.
    • Could you please add this in? (I can access this book, but it's in a library about a 20 minutes drive away)
      • Done, but check to ensure that I haven't messed up any of your other cites. I don't think that the difference in opening range is all that important, but it's on the same page if you want to add a note or something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for that. Given that the range between the ships when they spotted each other is in the article, I'll leave the opening range out.
  • Cunningham book need place of publication.
    • Done
      • I've added state names and hyphens to standardize the bibliography.
  • What makes naval-history.net reliable? It's a great site, but without sources I'm not sure that we should consider it reliable for anything above GA.
    • It checked out against the other sources I consulted, but I've replaced it with a book
  • I'd have no reservations about sending this to FAC, even as short as it is. It's comprehensive and well-written; all that matters. Regarding sourcing, my only reservation would be consulting any relevant RN Staff Histories. I haven't really looked for them, but several have been published within the last decade or so. Have you looked for any ship or class histories on the cruisers that might give more info? Ammunition expenditures are always nice to give if they can be found.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, though only Cruisers in Action, 1939–1945 had anything on the battle which added detail to O'Hara's The German Fleet at War and the British official history. I couldn't find any RN staff histories on this period, though I'd probably be on the wrong side of the world from hard copies on them if they do exist ;) Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to get in a request to place this battle in the context of later battles. Looking quickly through various lists and Category:Naval battles and operations of World War II, I don't see any later naval actions involving Germany. If this was the last action of the war of a certain type for Germany, that's worth mentioning in the lead, I think, and it will help to convince FAC reviewers that this is an important subject. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted in the first para, it was the last of many battles fought off Norway. I've also just added that it was the second last surface battle fought by the Kriegsmarine. I wouldn't say that this was a particularly important battle though - it's notable and interesting, just very significant. Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done for now. I'm close to supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your copy editing and comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But if the Germans (almost) never tried fighting another sea action after this one, that constitutes significance, and maybe we can find someone who'll say that. What was the last sea battle? - Dank (push to talk)
        • As noted in the article, the Battle of the Ligurian Sea, which was also a pretty minor affair. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm just taking a guess here, but if this goes to FAC, since it's so short, reviewers will be asking above all for context. So: after this, Russia, Germany, Britain and the US never again decided to fight a surface naval battle in the European campaign (except for a minor action involving mine-laying in the Mediterranean). I think you might be asked why this was so at FAC; why did Germany make a run for it this time, why did Britain attack, and why didn't they ever do the same after this battle? What changed? And I don't think this is such a bad question for A-class, either ... although if you give it a try and come up empty, I won't oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Those questions are mainly already answered in the article, I think. The German force was sailing from Norway to the Baltic in response to the deteriorating situation there. The British found out about this from signals intelligence and dispatched all easily available warships to intercept the Germans. It seems that only one German destroyer was left in northern Norway after the 4th Destroyer Flotilla sailed, and it left a few days later and was attacked by Allied aircraft. As for the lack of further battles: the Allies didn't "decide" not to fight the German surface fleet: by this time the surviving remnants of the surface fleet were either supporting the German forces in the eastern Baltic or tied up due to shortages of fuel and/or damage. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works for me, for A-class. Support on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Action_of_28_January_1945&oldid=427881561"