Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Niobe

< 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.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Niobe

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk), Peacemaker67 (talk)

SMS Niobe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is a joint effort by Peacemaker and me - Niobe had a fairly colorful career, serving under, depending on who you ask, five or six flags with three or four names during two world wars. Curiously, her career was bookended under German flags, and it was under Nazi control in 1943 that she ran aground and was then torpedoed and destroyed by British motor torpedo boats. This article is part of my German light cruiser topic and Peacemaker's Royal Yugoslav Navy topic. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

edit

Apparently was used as a communications platform when in service as a shore-based command ship by Hipper in 1915...this was a new tactic? ... there was also another Niobe, a cadet sail training frigate, that Hipper served on as well ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)~[reply]

I don't know how common it was in other navies, but the Germans did it frequently with a number of ships throughout the war. As for the other Niobe, it was this one. Parsecboy (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • of light cruisers that were built for the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • when she was captured by the Italians during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia Pipe Italians to the Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done
  • She was then seized by the German occupiers of Italy Pipe German to Nazi Germany.
    • Done
  • the Construction Department of the Reichsmarineamt (Imperial Navy Office) prepared Is Construction Department a proper noun?
    • Yes
  • all of the light cruisers built by the German fleet to the last official designs prepared in 1914 Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • for a top speed of 21.5 knots (39.8 km/h; 24.7 mph) Unlink km/h and mph.
    • Fixed
  • She had a crew of 14 officers and 243 enlisted men During peacetime or during war times?
    • I don't know that it changed - those are the only figures Groener gives (and Hildebrand et. al. simply states a crew of 257 (which jives with Groener's total).
  • Niobe was again tasked with escorting Wilhelm II in Hohenzollern, this time to meet with Russian Tsar Nicholas II from 11 to 13 September To where?
    • Niobe's chapter in Hildebrand didn't say, but coincidentally, I just rewrote the article on her sister Nymphe, which included the detail that the meeting was in Germany at a naval review held for Cousin Nicky's visit
  • she joined the cruisers of I Scouting Group for a trip to Norway --> "she joined the cruisers of I Scouting Group for her second trip to Norway"
    • Works for me
  • The ship cruised Chinese and Japanese waters for the next three years Pipe both Chinese and Japanese to the Qing Dynasty and the Empire of Japan.
    • Done
  • Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes/Yugoslavia is overlinked.
    • Fixed
  • Link the 1925 Germany to the Weimar Republic.
    • Done
  • several training cruises in the Mediterranean, and during Link Mediterranean.
    • Done
  • In April 1941, during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia Link Axis.
    • Done
  • the ship was captured by the Italians in Kotor on 25 April Pipe Italians to the Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done
  • She returned to German service in September 1943 Pipe German to Nazi Germany.
    • Done
  • Italy surrendered to the Allies Link Allies.
    • Done
  • Link Adriatic.
    • Done
  • The KIngdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) had initially been Typo in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
    • Fixed
  • with consideration given to Zenta or Novara --> "with consideration is given to Zenta or Novara"
    • I don't think that's right
  • Dalmacija remained in harbor and did not see action --> "Dalmacija remained in the harbor and did not see action"
    • Switched "harbor" to "Kotor" to be more specific

Part Two

  • sold to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia).[10][8] Re-order the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) had initially I do not think we should add "(later Yugoslavia)" because at the end of the "World War I" section and this sentence is at the begin of the "Yugoslav service and World War II" section. To me, it is clear that Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes would become Yugoslavia later in time and this is more an unnecessary reminder to me.
    • Fixed
  • in September 1943 after Italy surrendered to the Allies Wrong link it should be WWII not WWI.
    • Whoops, good catch!

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Consider adding alt text.
  • Could we have a bit more detail on the source of "File:SMS Niobe (1899) 2.jpg"? Ideally a volume and page number, but at least which issue.
    • I asked the uploader on Commons, but I'm not optimistic - I don't generally remember where I found images from a decade ago ;) But either way, we have the publication year, so it should be fine to use. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a little research, it seems that Weltrundschau zu Reclams Universum was only published once in 1902. So while a page or plate number would be nice, I can live with it as it is. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Niobe at her launching" Optional: → 'Niobe at her launch'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

edit
  • Minor comment here, but I always saw the lead as a summary of the article, not its introduction; thus the first paragraph of the body could do a better job starting off with the fact that the German navy was buidling the ship. Following the construction of the protected cruiser Gefion and the aviso Hela, the Construction Department of the Reichsmarineamt (Imperial Navy Office) prepared a design for a new small cruiser that combined the best attributes of both vessels. This statement, for example, makes for an odd opener without first mentioning Germany and/or the German navy.
    • Added "for the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy)" to the first sentence
  • Dalmacija remained in Kotor and did not see action. Some forty years old by that time, the ship was kept in port as a harbor defense vessel, since her relatively heavy anti-aircraft armament could be used to defend against air attacks. Was Kotor attacked by Axis aircraft during the Yugoslav campaign?
    • The port was apparently attacked by Italian aircraft, though there's no record of Dalmacija's activities during the attack. Peacemaker has better access to Yugoslav stuff, so he may be able to provide more details on this.
  • In 31 July 1942, the cruiser was attacked by the British submarine HMS Traveller south of Premantura but all of the torpedoes missed. Is it known what the ship was doing out there at the time?
    • No, unfortunately
  • According to Philbin, Hipper was tasked with bringing the ship "into full service". I'm thinking this is in the context of bringing the ship out of drydock, and seems like it should be mentioned that this is what he was doing.
    • What Philbin says seems to indicate that Hipper was Niobe's first commander, doing things like completing sea trials, initial work up, and such, but this is not the case.
  • According to this self-published source the ship was scuttled by the Italians before falling into German hands (they apparently had to refloat it). I'm generally not a fan of this book series, as it's self-published and often dubious, and I'd absolutely defer to Dobson, but it does raise the question, are there any reliable sources that contend the Italians resisted her seizure?
    • Not that I've seen - and yes, it's often questionably accurate - it describes the other Italian cruisers both as a "heavy cruiser", when they were the 3700-ton Capitani Romani class, which were barely larger than the heavier destroyers of the period.
  • Not sure how notable this is, but according to this source the ship was, while in Italian service, one of the Regia Marina's largest gunboats.
    • I don't really see that as worth mentioning.

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Indy. Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm supporting promotion now. If there's any more info on Kotor than that should be added, but other than that the article is good to go. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

edit
  • "..but as she was one of the six cruisers permitted.." Could be trimmed to "..but as one of six cruisers permitted.."
    • Good idea
  • "..with the Reichsmarine, and in 1925, Germany sold.." Should be either "..with the Reichsmarine and, in 1925, Germany sold.." or "..with the Reichsmarine, and in 1925 Germany sold.."
    • Fixed
  • "..and broken up for scrap in 1947–1949." Personally, I'd prefer "..and broken up for scrap between 1947 and 1949." Either way, this needs reconciling with the text of the article, which says that salvage operations began in 1947, and she was broken up for scrap by 1952.
    • Corrected - probably the 1949 date is from an old version of the article and I forgot to update it.
  • In the infobox, the two types of armament are until 1919 and 1916 respectively. I assume the uncertainty about what armament it received is part of the reason for this, but it currently gives the impression that it simply didn't have any after 1919. I would recommend either finding some way to convey this in the infobox, or just remove all information about armament from here.
    • I'm just going to remove the parenthetical years - the standard for infoboxes is the original configuration
  • "After Niobe returned to active service in April 1902, she returned to duty with.." Repetition of "returned" in awkward.
    • Fixed
  • "..briefly used Niobe as a headquarters ship.." Link headquarters ship again, as in the lead.
  • Following on from the infobox query about the armament, in the body it states "In 1917, she was disarmed so her guns could be used to reinforce the defenses of Wilhelmshaven." This 1917 date doesn't match either of those in the infobox. But it also then goes on to say: "Her old 10.5 cm SK L/40 guns were replaced with newer SK L/45 guns.." But if she had been disarmed, surely there weren't guns to replace? This has all got me a bit confused.
    • The point of the latter sentence is that the guns were installed in place of her old armament, i.e., on a one-for-one basis in the same locations
  • Agree with CPA-5 above that "(later Yugoslavia)" doesn't need repeating at the start of the Yugoslav service and World War II section.
    • Done
  • Mixed units: according to Comway, "..8.5 cm (3.35 in)..", but then according to Lenton "..3.4 in (8.6 cm)..".
    • Corrected
  • And then, "..carried six 8.3 cm.." followed by "..six 8.3 mm guns..".
    • Fixed
  • Why doesn't "..four 47 mm guns.." get converted?
    • It probably was converted elsewhere but it got removed during a rewrite?
  • "..which significantly reducing the warships operating in the Adriatic Sea." Doesn't make sense; either remove "which", change to "reduced", or rework.
    • Fixed
  • "..8.4 cm (3.3 in) AA guns, four 4.7 cm AA guns, four 20 mm Oerlikon AA guns, and twenty-six 20 mm Breda AA guns.." Only the first measurement is converted?
    • Fixed 4.7cm -> 47mm, but the rest are already converted elsewhere
  • "..the first taking place of 13 November.." "on", not "of".
    • Good catch

Generally a very good, interesting article. My points are mostly nit picks, nice work. Harrias talk 23:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another review! Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One very minor point highlighted above, but regardless I'm happy that this article meets the criteria. Harrias talk 10:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/SMS_Niobe&oldid=921919199"