Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Berlin (Atlantic)

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.


Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Operation Berlin (Atlantic) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Operation Berlin was a successful raid into the North Atlantic conducted by the two German Scharnhorst-class battleships in early 1941. It was everything the much better-known raid by the Bismarck was supposed to be. The two battleships sank or captured 22 Allied merchant vessels, but had to abandon two attacks on convoys that were escorted by British battleships. Despite a massive effort the British failed to bring the German force to battle, and both battleships docked in France. This success proved illusionary, however, as the British badly damaged the battleships in French ports and Bismarck had worse luck and was sunk.

I developed this article to keep myself amused while on two weeks leave during a COVID-19 lockdown in August. It was assessed as a GA in late August, and has since been expanded and improved. I am hopeful that the A-class criteria are now met and hope to develop the article further to FA class. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

edit

A nice and tidy article, only a couple of nitpicks:

  • Opposing plans section: these ships to focus attacks made during raids on Allied merchant vessels for succinctness, suggest: "these ships to focus their attacks on Allied merchant vessels
  • German surface raids section: with the resulting extensive damage also requiring lengthy repairs in Germany.?

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7

edit

Very interesting. As an aside, I am impressed by the German capacity for replenishment at sea, which neither the Royal Navy nor the US Navy could have matched in 1941. Just a few comments:

HF - support

edit

Will look at this one soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "They were well armoured and faster than the Royal Navy's battlecruisers" - we are told the comparison in speed, and later in armament. Do sources provide a comparison in armor?
    • Not really. As the armour quality of British capital ships varied widely (e.g. HMS Hood was a deathtrap and the Nelson and King George V classes were very well protected), it would be a tricky comparison to make in aggregate
  • "The battleships refuelled from Schlettstadt and Esso Hamburg " - ship type for Esso Hamburg?
  • "King George V was dispatched from Halifax to patrol the area the ships had been sunk" - where the ships had been sunk?
  • "115,622 grains (7,492.2 g)" - link for grains? The most familiar usages of grains as a measurement are for very small items, not ships. Is this a convert template error for gross register tons?
    • It's a typo, and if you ever apply for a job in the State Department I'd be happy to give you a reference where I cite this comment as an example of your diplomatic skills! Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Boulder: Westview Press." - add the state for Boulder. I'm assuming Boulder, Colorado, but the other US locations include the state
  • Recommend consistency in title/sentence case for source titles. Konstam in largely in sentence case, O'Hara is a mix, and the others are largely title case
  • Sourcing looks reliable enough

Good work here, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 04:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • All references appear uniformly properly formatted
  • All ISBNs link properly
  • The JSTOR reference links properly

Found nothing objectionable in this respect, so supporting in sources department--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.