Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SM U-1 (Austria-Hungary)

< 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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SM U-1 (Austria-Hungary)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): White Shadows (talk)

SM U-1 (Austria-Hungary) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Back to working on submarines. As with the class article which is currently over at FAC, I've taken an old gem that @Bellhalla: wrote several years ago, brought it up to the standards of 2018 in terms of article quality, added every exhaustible source I own and could possibly have come across, and more than tripled the size of the article in the process. Bellhalla deserves all the credit in the world for getting get this article to GA-status as well. With that in mind and despite his apparent retirement from Wikipedia, if this article passes this this ACR, I would like Bellhalla to be given co-credit alongside myself.

As for the submarine herself, U-1 was Austria-Hungary's first ever submarine. She was built by Simon Lake, an American naval architect, and had several interesting design mechanics that you don't often see on many other submarines, such as a diving chamber to enter and exit the submarine while it was underwater. Perhaps most bizarrely, she was also equipped with wheels (yes, you read that right...wheels) to "travel" along the seafloor. As an experimental design, U-1 had several flaws (the wheels proved to be entirely useless and the engines routinely poisoned the submarine), but she was commissioned into the navy nonetheless as part of a design competition with two other foreign firms.

U-1 was used mostly for training purposes, though she was briefly mobilized during the First Balkan War, and she was occasionally assigned recon missions out of Trieste and Pola during World War I, but never sank or damaged any enemy vessels during the war. She was declared obsolete in January 1918, and again relegated to training missions before being put up at Pola right before the end of the war. After a brief period of chaos regarding who owned the submarine following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (as was the case with literally every single ship in the Austro-Hungarian fleet at the end of the war), U-1 was seized by, and later granted to, Italy in 1920. The Italians decided to immediately scrap the submarine in Pola that same year.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 00:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chetsford

edit

There's not much to say here, this is another nice and interesting sub article that's recently passed GA and seems to meet all the functional criteria for A. I'm always particularly impressed at the exhaustive efforts to properly apply measurement conversions by authors of ships articles. A few minor items that can be actioned or ignored at your leisure:

  • In the last sentence of the lead "subsequently" is used, though, it doesn't strictly seem necessary. Further, it's used in the preceding sentence as well so reads very slightly redundantly.
  • Deleted the duplicated word. Good catch as I can't stand using the same phrase repeatedly in just a few sentences.
  • keeping the possibility of reforming the Empire into a triple monarchy alive might read clearer as "keeping alive the possibility of reforming the Empire into a triple monarchy" but maybe it's just me
  • Done.
  • Faced with the prospect of being given an ultimatum to hand over the former Austro-Hungarian warships, the National Council agreed to hand over the ships beginning on 10 November 1918. - Replacing one of the two "hand over the" with an alternate term like "surrender the" or something might offer a slightly smoother read.
  • Done.
  • This was done in order to properly evaluate the various different proposals which would come forward. - Maybe either "different proposals" or "various proposals" but not "various different proposals"?
  • Done

Chetsford (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

edit

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

Lead
  • the the first sentence of the lead, the U-1 class
  •  Done
  • also the American
  •  Done
  • link mobilisation in the lead
  •  Done
  • I think the lead needs a bit summarising the observations of Dickson, O'Hara, and Worth, and Greger about her being a failure etc
  • I made a mention of it in the last sentence of the second paragraph. Please feel free to offer commentary!
Background
  • comma after Popper
  •  Done
  • Marinesektion is mentioned without explanation
  •  Done I can elaborate further if necessary.
  • link Lake again at first mention in the body
  •  Done I also linked the company's name in the body. This can be undone if you think it constitutes an WP:OVERLINK.
  • suggest After being recommended by Popper, Simon Lake,...
  •  Done
  • I suggest trimming the book titles from this section, and just quote them as historians/authors
  •  Done I trimmed Dickson, O'Hara, and Worth. I left Greger's book title in place because I feel like it flows better that way but I can trim that down too.
  •  Done
  • What Lake thought of his own subs is a bit immaterial and too close to the subject, I think we should rely on third-party sources for this
  • I thought it was an interesting piece of info that I haven't been able to find elsewhere, probably because it must have not been considered noteworthy enough of an event to be recorded in any English-speaking sources. You are right that he's hardly a neutral observer, but I think the reader can understand that quite well. The point of including the quote was to demonstrate that there were at least a few details of the submarine's design which were actually good things that could easily be overlooked when constructing such a vessel.
  • in the General characteristics subsection, it is said that she had a double hull, but later a single hull. Aren't these things mutually exclusive? Also link double hull.
  • I've just realized there's a conflict in sources. Sieche (a very well-respected naval historian who has extensive credentials when you are discussing Austro-Hungarian naval history), states the submarine had a double-hull. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, which is more or less considered the authoritative work on all naval vessels during the period each book covers (in this case, 1906-1922), states the submarine had a single hull. I'm thinking an efn that states there is a conflict among sources regarding the hull type. Thoughts?
  • Get this, the ship had a double hull. I misread Conway's on that one. Other sources back it up as well that the U-1 class was construct with a double hull.
  • suggest linking diving chamber again at first mention in the body
  •  Done
  • consider providing the range of a selected A-H 45cm torpedo and the range of the deck gun
  • I would if I could but unfortunately I can't find any sources that would give any sort of range for these weapons. That's actually a much more harder task than it seems. I've only been able to find info regarding ranges for weapons a handful of times across the dozens of articles I've edited in topics such as these.
  • Friedman's Naval Weapons of WWI has entries for both the Skoda 37 mm SFK L/23 gun (3000 m effective range) on p. 295 and a number of 45 cm torpedoes on pp. 350–351. My scan of the latter page is a bit hazy, but maybe @Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy: might have a hard copy? It appears to me the L5/1909 was the submarine torpedo, but I can't make out the range and speed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be fantastic information to have in the article. Really hoping we can get that info because I'd love to include it. Good find BTW!
  • I expected to see details of her engines and power output in the body rather than just in the infobox
  •  Done
Construction and commissioning
  • suggest linking keel laying, ceremonial ship launching and sea trial
  •  Done
  • the location of the diving tanks and need for pumping are mentioned twice
  •  Done tweaked language to make it not repetitive.
  • and was in danger of being crushed
  •  Done
Service history
  • link ship commissioning, mobilisation and Balkan Wars
  •  Done
  • I'm no expert, but I've never seen the spelling of Prisrena for Prizren before, Italian?
  • Yes, it's Italian. At the time, many of Austria-Hungary's coastal locations used Italian names. I followed convention by keeping the contemporary names in place (Pola rather than Pula, Prisrena rather than Prizren, ect).
  • "Both Russian"
  •  Done
  • "the Austro-Hungarian Army and Navy wasere subsequently"
  •  Done
  • "as a training vessels"
  •  Done
  • "training cruisers"
  •  Done
  • link Trieste
  •  Done
  • "U-1s deployment"
  •  Done
  • "mid-1918"
  •  Done
  • when you say "the newly formed state" use the name here
  •  Done
  • perhaps "also not yet publicly dethronedrejected"
  • I used the phrase "dethroned" because we're talking about the nature of the Emperor's rule over the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was rapidly disintegrating at the time. Karl hoped that while the Dual Monarchy may not survive, the Empire in some sort of federated form could...which meant the breaking off of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs from Hungary was actually a good thing, so long as the state didn't also declare that their ties to the Emperor were severed in addition to their ties to the Kingdom of Hungary. With this in mind, I used the word "dethroned" because it carries a more monarchical connotation as opposed to "rejected". If you think the latter is a better phrase to use however, I can definitely replace it.
  • Fair point. I've changed the language to "rejected".  Done
  • sp "Rear Adrmial"
  •  Done
  • link Armistice of Villa Giusti
  •  Done
  • link Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919)
  •  Done
  • "It would not be until 1920 whenthat the final distribution"
  •  Done
  • link World War I reparations
  •  Done
  • suggest fn a is redundant
  • I included it because I didn't want the reader to get confused by the fact that the infobox states Italy took possession on the 9th, while the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs is listed as handing the submarine over to the Allied powers on the 10th. The last days of October and the first weeks of November 1918 were incredibly confusing, especially in that part of Europe. I can delete if you think it's redundant however. I just didn't want anyone being confused by the dates listed.
  • Very well. Eliminated the efn.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kges1901

edit

Excellent article, some comments:
Lead

  • Did Lake design the submarine, or was it the company? In the body you have Lake as designer.
  • Lake designed it, as owner of the Lake Torpedo Boat Company...if that makes sense. I reworded the lead a bit to hopefully clarify that.
  • posed a risk of poisoning the ship's Seemingly inconsistent, in the lead sentence you wrote 'boat' instead of ship
  • Boat and ship are used interchangeably when talking about submarines. I can change the article to only use one work over the other but SM U-1 and all U-boats of the German and Austro-Hungarian navies have been referred to as "boats" and "ships".
  • Not an issue then, I'll defer to your knowledge of the sources in this area.

Infobox

  • Why are the COs notable? Asking this because CO lists do not seem to generally be included in even most surface ship FAs.
  • It's just extra info that we have available, I didn't see why we shouldn't put it into the infobox, especially since there's a section in every ship-related infobox for CO lists to be included. CO lists don't usually exist in ship FAs because the information isn't available.
  • If data is already cited in body it is unnecessary to have refs for it in the infobox
  • Removed.

Background

  • Constructor General (German: Generalschiffbauingenieur) of the Austro-Hungarian Navy Seems to be missing a 'the' before constructor general. Alternately you could omit the comma before Siegfried.
  • Removed the comma.
  • test each ship against one another. Again, are submarines ships or boats?

Design

  • raiding enemy shipping Allied or Italian? 'Enemy' is sometimes considered POV.
  • Removed references of "enemy" where Allied or Italian can be used in its place. There is one mention of the word "enemy" that has to remain though, as it is used for hypothetical reasons. "Lake envisioned U-1 and her sister ship only submerging while conducting surprise attacks or in order to escape pursuit from an enemy warship."
  • peaceful exploring of the sea perhaps 'sea exploration' for concision
  • Rewritten, but I kept the word "peaceful" in there, to make it clear that the original design was for.
  • In 1917, U-1 was fitted with a 37-millimeter (1.5 in) deck gun. This was ultimately removed in January 1918 when the submarine resumed training duties. Can be combined to ', which was ultimately'
  • Removed
  • The information about her complement seems out of place at the end of the paragraph and could be moved to the first paragraph. The General characteristics section also should include the range, which is seemingly only in the infobox.
  • Done

Construction and Commissioning

  • desire by Austro-Hungarian naval officials to test every possible aspect of the ship Shouldn't it be 'desire of'?
  • Done
  • Missing ref for efn b
  • Done

Service history

  • Upon completion of this refit in early 1915, U-1 returned to training duties through 4 October. Thereafter, she was stationed at Trieste on 2 November. Sentences could be combined. Also, what was she doing between 4 October and 2 November?
  • Merged. She remained in port during this time.
  • and U-1's deployment to the port Repetition, perhaps use 'her', 'to the port' is redundant since the port is mentioned at the end of the sentence
  • I'm not comfortable using the phrase "her port" as it wasn't "her port" until she was deployed there. Replaced "port" with "city" instead.
  • My comment may have been unclear as I meant that U-1 was repeated twice in the same sentence.
  • war's end unnecessary contraction, perhaps 'end of the war'
  • Done

Kges1901 (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review All sources seem WP:RS and the contemporary sources are used appropriately. Comments:

  • Lake is missing an OCLC number.
  • Fixed
  • Ditto for the RUSI journal article (Mitchell).
  • Fixed
  • Is there an ISSN for Sieche 1985?
  • No dice. I just can't find any leads that point me to either an ISSN or an OCLC.
  • Citation for Baumgartner and Sieche is inconsistent, perhaps cite the webpage in the bib and include a note for the German edition instead of putting it in the further reading (unless you have access to a copy of the book). Kges1901 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant is that the Baumgarter and Sieche ref 17 is the only one not in sfn, perhaps you could do a full citation to the webpage in the bibliography, and possibly annotate using the German edition full ref from the further reading using the – symbol as a break. Kges1901 (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review All PD images are adequately licensed, FUR for lead image adequate. Kges1901 (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/SM_U-1_(Austria-Hungary)&oldid=1136426310"