Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Goeben

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SMS Goeben

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)
Toolbox

Finally, the last of the individual German battlecruisers has made its way to MILHIST ACR. This article passed GA last month; I feel it's comprehensive and meets the criteria for A-class. I welcome any and all comments and suggestions for the article. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • No problems reported with alt text or external links. One dab link needs to be located and if at all possible removed.
    • "...and named after the Franco-Prussian War general August von Goeben." Under the circumstances I think general should be capitalized since it precedes a proper name.
    • A little more detail on the coaling could be of use to readers, among other things it would be of interest to know who controlled the coal supplies used to refuel the battlecruiser and whether or not the Germans had to compensate the Italians for the use of the coal in their ports.
    • The third paragraph of The pursuit of Goeben and Breslau section contains the sentence "Troubridge was by then convinced that any attempt to attack Goeben with its big 28 cm guns with his four older armored cruisers would be suicidal, and so he broke off the chase early on 7 August." This seems to contradict the she format used in the article, and either needs to be clarified or fixed.
    • Given the number of odd sentences and a few awkwardly worded/phrased parts of the article I would suggest putting in a request for a copyedit from a third party source.
    • The last paragraph of the last section in the article starts with "In 1936, the ship had her name officially shortened to Yavuz." I would suggest providing her name before the official shortening just so people do not have to go looking for the original name to compare the two. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support TomStar81 (Talk) 10:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You've got a mix of British and American spellings, pick one. Your conversions will default to British unless you add |sp=us to the template or have them abbreviated.
  • Displacement needs to be converted between long tons and metric tons for both the infobox and main body.
  • Shouldn't 'German navy' be capitalized as it's a proper noun? she was commissioned into the German navy, on 2 July 1912
  • Periodic maintenance reads awkwardly here: 21 August to 16 October for periodic maintenance I'd just delete periodic entirely, but that's just me.
  • How did she recoal off Denusa? Rendezvous with a collier? Inquiring minds want to know!
  • Convert the 50 sq meter damage to English units in the 1914 section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've got everything you pointed out, except for the coaling bit. Halpern says on page 52 that Souchon arranged to meet a collier in the Aegean, but on page 56 (where the bit about Denusa is mentioned) he doesn't state specifically that it was this collier. I'd assume it's the same though. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The engagement of 14 November 1914 is the Battle of Cape Sarych; a link would be appropriate. I just got a book that covers all of the Black Sea engagements and should be able to expand that article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is Hough's statement about the longest-serving dreadnought still true? I believe that his book was originally published in the 60s as my Dad had a copy. How does that compare with the Iowas? I dunno if you want to count reserve/mothballed time or not, but the date of being stricken should govern last available date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Goeben has had by far the longest time on active duty. New Jersey, which was the longest serving Iowa, spent about 20-21 years on active duty between 1943 and 2001. Goeben was in commission from March 1912 to December 1950, which is over 38 years, nearly twice as long as New Jersey. If you include the reserve time, New Jersey goes to 58 years (commissioned in 1943 and turned into a museum in 2001), Goeben goes to 59 years (commissioned in 1912, sold to breakers in 1971). So by either metric Goeben is still the longest serving dreadnought. Of course, New Jersey has existed longer, given that she's been a museum for the last 9 years, but I don't think anyone would call that military service in any capacity. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is in good shape, but it needs more work to reach A class status. My suggestions are:
    • The article's coverage of the ship's post-WW1 Turkish service is inadequate. There's no discussion of the role she played in the Turkish Navy and it's unclear from the text if she put to sea on any occasions other than when she carried Atatürk's body in 1938.
      • There just isn't much on the ship's Turkish service; I can't write what I can't source. Staff more or less stops after the end of the war, and Conway's is fairly short on detail. I did add a couple of lines about the visit of Missouri in 1946 though.
    • The second and third sentences in the first para seem to be too detailed for the lead paragraph
    • The article has some awkward grammar and text written in the passive voice and would benefit from a copy edit
      • Re passive voice: in some places, it just doesn't make sense to put it in active voice (namely, those where the actor is unknown or exceedingly vague, or where it is very repetitive, such as having to state it was Souchon who sent the ship anywhere). For example: "The work was done though the construction of steel cofferdams, which where then pumped out to create a dry work area around the damaged hull." It doesn't seem useful to point out that it was dockyard workers (or whoever) that erected the cofferdams and pumped them out. It adds nothing to the narrative. I've had a go at fixing the passive voice in other areas, though. Let me know what else you think needs to be fixed.
    • Every paragraph in the 'Construction' section starts with 'Goeben'
      • Fixed.
    • "disbanding the Mediterranean Division was deemed to be out of the question" isn't great grammar and is unclear given that the article doesn't mention any proposals to disband the Division
      • Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about that; all Staff says is The Second Balkan War, beginning on 29 June 1913, meant there was no thought of dissolving the Mediterranean Division. I haven't been able to find anything more about it, other than that the staff wanted to replace Goeben with Moltke in 1914.
    • What was the role of the Mediterranean Division? Was it simply to 'show the flag'?
      • Basically, yes.
    • "However, Admirals Alfred von Tirpitz and Hugo von Pohl transmitted secret orders to Souchon instructing him to instead sail to Constantinople" - what this is 'instead' of isn't identified
      • It's in reference to the Kaiser's order to either raid the western Med or break out into the Atlantic. I clarified this a bit more.
    • Pula is also referred to as 'Pola'
      • Fixed.
    • I think that I've read that the first bombardment of Sevastopol took place before the Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia, and contributed to war breaking out - is this correct?
      • Yes, the bombardment of Sevastopol was before Turkey was officially at war. I'm not sure how I forgot to put that in there before, though...
    • 'Black Seas Fleet' should probably be 'Black Sea Fleet' and isn't linked the first time it's mentioned
    • Is it possible to provide the date on which Admiral Souchon suspended operations due to the coal shortage?
      • Nope, Halpern doesn't give us anything more specific than the end of 1916.
    • Almost every paragraph in the section on the ship's wartime service starts with 'On' then a date - this could be mixed up a bit
      • Fixed.
      • As for Istanbul/Constantinople, there's a bit of a problem. For part of Goeben/Yavuz's career, the city was known as Constantinople, after 1930 it was officially Istanbul. I have changed the instances of Istanbul in the WWI sections, but have left those that cover the post-1930 stuff. Parsecboy (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
  • "As a result, the Mediterranean Division would need to remain in the area." Was someone considering moving it?
  • "While returning from another transport escort operation on 26 December, Yavuz was mined twice in quick succession about one nautical mile outside the Bosphorus." Perhaps "was struck by mines"?
  • "Only one destroyer, the Gnevny, had been able to close the distance and launch an attack, which missed." Was, not had been, would be better.
  • "Russian forces were pushing heavily on the Ottomans during the Caucasus Campaign." Awkward.
  • What happened to the coal shortage? You mention operations were suspended, and then suddenly they restart. Did the new admiral cancel the orders?
Please take care of these. – Joe N 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re your first point: see towards the top of Nick's comments above.
What's wrong with "mined?"
I tend to agree with Joe here - while the usage may be technically correct, "mined" sounds like laying the mines, as opposed to being struck by them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
I reworded that, let me know if it's better now.
I added a line explaining that coal shipments resumed following the armistice between Turkey and Russia in Dec. 1917. Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- a lot of work gone into this since GA; detail, referencing and illustration look good. Made a few tweaks to prose but essentially happy with how it reads, although could you not use the more common term "embezzlement" instead of "peculation", which I'm sure some will think is a typo for "speculation"? Other than that, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • All of the German Federal Archive images need English-language descriptions. Translations can be added and noted in English through the use of the {{en|English description here}} formatting.
  • The lead image needs alt text.
    • Fixed
  • Why do some of the split references contain a title and some not?
  • Lead, "Following her commissioning in 1912, Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau formed the German Mediterranean Division (German: Mittelmeer-Division) in late 1912". Repeition of year is a bit distracting.
    • Fixed.
  • Balkan Wars, "As a result, he ordered his ships make for Pola for repairs". Should this be "his ships to make for Pola"?
    • Yup.
  • The pursuit, "In the event of war, Kaiser Wilhelm II had ordered Goeben and Breslau to either conduct raids in the western Mediterranean or break out into the Atlantic and attempt to return to German waters." Was this decision left up to the commanding officer, or are scholars not sure which he ordered?
    • The former, this has been clarified.
  • 1914, "could not be defeated in detail by Yavuz". What is meant by "in detail"?
    • Basically, it means defeating a numerically superior opponent in successive engagements with only portions of that opponent (if that makes sense); it's been linked.
  • 1914, "Yavuz inadvertently engaged" How do you inadvertently engage a fleet?
    • You run into them accidentally? :)
  • 1915, "On 7 February, Yavuz conducted another such operation to receive Midilli." Had the first operation not worked, or had the Midilli gone out again in the meantime?
    • This was a second operation.
  • 1915, "Yavuz and Midilli sank". I thought that the Yavuz was sailing with the Breslau in this encounter? Also, they were attempting to rescue two ships; one sank, but what happened to the other one?
    • Breslau = Midilli
  • 1915, fourth paragraph. You switch back and forth between calling here the Goeben and the Yavuz. Although she may have still been under German control, she was technically Turkish, so should the Turkish name only be used? Also, it's rather confusing to have one ship called two different names in the same paragraph.
    • Fixed.
  • 1916-1917 - "It wasn't until an armistice between Russia and the Ottoman Empire was signed in December 1917—formalized in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918—following the Bolshevik revolution in 1917" First, the multiple occurences of 1917 is a little distracting. Second, jumping from 1917 to 1918 back to 1917 is rather confusing. What about putting the insert after the Bolshevik revolution section; something like "signed in December 1917 following the Bolshevik revolution - formalized in the Treaty... - etc."?
    • Fixed.
  • 1918 - I'm left with a few questions about this section - Why was only one of three holes repaired? Why were the dockworkers uncooperative? Why was it necessary that the demilitarization of a ship be "enforced"?
    • They were in Sevastopol, which is in Russia, hence why the dockworkers were uncooperative and why demilitarization had to be enforced. As for the repair work, I'm assuming it was because the other two holes required much more work than was possible to do at the time, and the ship could still get around with the holes.
  • More of an idle question than anything else, but isn't it common to have ship articles located at the name under which the ship performed most of its duties/existed the longest? In this case, it was the Goeben for only three years, while it was the Yavuz or some variation for almost 60. Just a thought I had...
    • Generally, yes. But this ship is referred to as Goeben pretty much universally by that name, even while under "Turkish" service during the war, which is of course her most notable activity. For instance, you get 760 hits for Goeben+battlecruiser and 291 for Yavuz+battlecruiser in Google Books.

I don't really think any of the these things are a big deal, and shouldn't take much time to fix up. I look forward to supporting! Dana boomer (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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/SMS_Goeben&oldid=1142557521"