Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Berlin (Atlantic)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 24 February 2022 [1].

Operation Berlin (Atlantic) edit

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a successful raid into the North Atlantic by two German battleships between January and March 1941. It was everything the much better known raid attempted by the Bismarck was meant to be: the German ships ranged across the Atlantic, evaded powerful British forces that were searching for them, sank or captured 22 merchant vessels and returned to port unscathed. This victory proved short-lived, as the Germans failed to realise just how risky the operation had been and the British learned from their mistakes. All up, the article covers a pretty dramatic period of World War II and discusses some interesting issues regarding the tactics both sides were using.

I did most of the work to develop this article during a COVID lockdown last year. It was assessed as a GA in August, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in November. The article has since been further expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful the FA criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Check alphabetization of bibliography
  • Volumes should use |volume=
  • Be consistent in whether you use HMSO or full title. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • At some stage it changed from His/Her Majesty's Stationary Office to HMSO, and I've gone with whatever was being used at the time the book was published. Thanks a lot for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Support. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this; it's well-written and well-constructed. A couple of minor points that don't detract from my support:

  • "Admiral Hipper departed Brest on 1 February to begin its raid into the North Atlantic." The last time Admiral Hipper was mentioned the plan was to attack convoy routes between Gibraltar, Sierra Leone, and the UK, so apparently the plan changed?
  • "Ships of the Home Fleet were sortied again in response to the presence of German raiders in the Atlantic." Does this refer to Scharnhorst and Gneisenau? If so I think we should say so.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: thanks a lot for this review. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • Works consulted should be in alphabetical order.
  • "It was the last victory achieved by German warships in the Atlantic". Probably I wasn't looking hard enough, but could you indicate where this is covered in the main text?
    • The 'Subsequent operations' section, which describes the failure of the only other two subsequent operations: the Bismark's attempted raid and the aborted raid by the Lützow. I've tweaked the text to note it was the last victory against merchant shipping in the North Atlantic, as there were some successful operations against warships and convoys in the Channel and the waters off France involving smaller vessels. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am no doubt being unaccountably slow, but could you quote the main article text which you summarise in the main text as "It was the last victory achieved by German warships against merchant shipping in the North Atlantic"?
The second para of the 'Subsequent operations' section describes the failure of the last two such operations, and the end of them. I've added a sentence to make this more explicit, and tweaked the text a bit. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adopted plans of its own ... This would include". Should "This" not be 'these'?
  • "Unbeknownst" → 'Unknown'?
    • I think that this is OK? Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's technically grammatical and means what you want it to. I am not wild about using a relatively obscure expression when a more common one is available, but it is a style choice, which is why I ended with a question mark.
  • In Assessments you say "Operation Berlin was a considerable victory for the Germans". Yet in Historiography two of the four historians you mention disagree with this and the other two are at best equivocal. I am left confused as to what the consensus of scholarly opinion is in this respect.
    • I've removed 'considerable victory', as it probably was WP:PEACOCK in this context, albeit supported by the source. The historians generally agree that the raid was a significant tactical success (the battleships sank lots of ships and escaped without a scratch), but that it contributed little to the overall German war effort as the underlying concept was a bad, especially by this stage of the war. Roskill squares the circle quite well: he admires how the Germans pulled the operation off, but notes that they got lucky and it's not surprising that the attempt to repeat the operation a few months later ended in failure. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers.
  • Page range for Steury?

This trivia is all I can find. An excellent article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot for this review. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fun to read and almost nothing to pick up on - my pleasure. One minor query left. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129 edit

(Placeholder) SN54129 17:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, Nick-D; just wasted half my afternoon having to refute non-ANIable low-level disruption that nonetheless I have to devote a massive screed to...anyway. SN54129 17:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my suggestions are those of the non-subject expert WP:READER  :) SN54129 12:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd, perhaps, not to mention the names of these mysterious "two German Scharnhorst-class battleships" in the lead, particularly as you do name Bismark?
  • Can I ask what the difference is between "German surface raiders" and the German navy? (Ah, does it include the Luftwaffe too?)
    • Tweaked to warships in the lead. The term is explained/should hopefully be sufficiently obvious in the context in the next section. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the convoys" -- only one?
    • Yep - see the 'First attempt' section. The source doesn't explain why, but the battleships would have been low on ammunition and faced some very angry British warships if they had shot up one of these large convoys. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a view shared by historians" -- perhaps "generally shared"; the historiography section suggests that there's a fair degree of criticism also.
  • "in February 1942" -- in February the following year might add a couple of words, but would avoid repeating month/year.
    • I think that might be a bit unclear in this context. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Scharnhorst-class battleships were capable of sailing for 9,020 miles...This meant that they needed to regularly refuel from supply ships during long voyages" -- This reads slightly funny to me. It seems instinctive that, if you can sail a massive amount of mileage (as it sounds like), then you have excellent fuel capacity, and by extension, wouldn't need regular resupplying. But if they did, I suggest the addition of some form of words such as "since this was only a small proportion of the distance they were expected to cover" or something.
    • Tweaked. The sources are a bit vague about the reason here, but all agree that the range was too short for the ships' intended raiding function. The reason was likely that the ships would have used up their fuel much faster if they entered combat and had to sail at top speed, and they needed a healthy reserve of fuel at all times (this was one of the reasons for Bismark's sinking, as she had to take a shortcut to France after being damaged in battle, which made it easier for the British to intercept her). Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the resultant extensive damage" -- any details as to what the nature of the dame was? (being so extensive.)
    • Big holes in her bow - added. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Ultra
    • It's linked on the first mention :) Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Six German merchant raiders also operated against Allied shipping in the South Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans" -- Does rather sound as if the Germans had six merchantmen covering over a hundred million square miles of ocean  :)
    • That's pretty much it, though the raiders concentrated on shipping routes, etc. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The goal for this operation was for" -- could get by with "Their goal was", eliminating repetition of "operation".
    • Tweaked along those lines. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lütjens embarked on the later ship" -- latter ship? (Also, he didn't just embark, he sailed on/travelled on/commanded the operation from... perhaps swap out "embark").
  • "to the north-east to evade the British" -- to/to. Can the sentence be tightened? "The battle group evaded the British by turning northeast into the", or something?
  • Perhaps mention earlier that the ship Lütjens sailed on was his flagship.
    • Done per the tweak two comments up. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Not actionable at all, but out of curiosity, do you know how a storm damaged Scharnhorst's gun turrets?!)
    • The sources don't say. A winter storm off southern Greenland would be pretty intense, and German warships of this era tended to be a bit mechanically fragile. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know the nature of the ships' serious mechanical problems?
  • "During this period, Admiral Hipper departed Brest on 15 March" -- Meanwhile, Admiral Hipper had departed.
  • "Raeder acknowledged his error after the war" -- saying what?
    Thanks for this Nick-D; a really interesting article. Just a few nitpicks here. Cheers! SN54129 12:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for these comments. I think I may now have addressed them. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed you have, Nick-D, and I especially appreciate the detailed background you gave here. Cheers! SN54129 16:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 20:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Operation_Berlin_(Atlantic)/archive1&oldid=1073844851"