Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Wettin

< 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 HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Wettin edit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

Another overhauled German battleship article up for A-class review - this ship saw limited service during World War I but did not see combat. Thanks to those who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Parsec, nice work. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Vizeadmiral (Vice Admiral) Friedrich von Hollmann": should you introduce the VAdm abbreviation here?
    • Good idea
  • slightly inconsistent: "14,000 metric horsepower (13,808 ihp; 10,297 kW)" v. "14,000 PS (13,810 ihp; 10,300 kW)" specifically 10,297 v 10,300
    • Fixed
  • inconsistent: "Wettin was laid down in November 1899" (lead) v. "Laid down: October 1899" (infobox) v. "Wettin's keel was laid on 10 October 1899" (body of the article)
    • Fixed
  • the infobox mentrions that part of the belt armor was 100 mm, but this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the body
    • Added to the body
  • "Construction —1905": suggest making this an endash, or removing the space in front of the emdash
    • Fixed
  • actually, in the header mentioned above I wonder if this date (1905) is correct, given that construction began 1899 and appears to have been concluded around 1902? Perhaps you should use a date range here?
    • Yes, but the section covers events from her construction through 1905.
      • Okay, in that case I think it should probably be a spaced endash then, as that implies a range. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest adding the year here: "On 9 September, Wettin and her four..."
    • Done
  • this sentence appears to be missing something: "The ships, which were anchored in Schilksee in Kiel."
    • Fixed.
  • in the References, suggest adding a translation for the Grießmer title
    • Thanks for the reminder
  • image licensing looks ok to me

CommentsSupport by PM Great work on this article, very little to comment on:

  • you could use the full date she was laid down in the infobox
    • Good catch
  • her range is in the infobox but not provided or cited in the body
    • Added.
  • link ship commissioning, Skagerrak, Kattegat, German Bight, ship breaking
    • All done
  • move link to Elbe up to first mention
    • Done

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66 edit

  • Use [[Scotch marine boiler|cylindrical boilers]] for the boilers in both the main body and the infobox
    • Done
  • Hyphenate twin gun
    • Done
  • Explain or link L/40 nomenclature
    • There's already a note on that.
  • Machinery spaces is kinda vague. Howzabout propulsion machinery instead?
    • Works for me
  • Link main battery, naval cadets, naval register
    • Done
  • the I Squadron and the I Scouting Group visited Britain, including a stop at Plymouth on 10 July. The German fleet departed on 13 July, bound for the Netherlands; the I Squadron anchored in Vlissingen the following day. There, the ships were visited by Queen Wilhelmina. The I Squadron Awful lot of "the I Sqadron" in close conjunction here. Mix it up a bit.
    • Changed the 3rd one, but the 2nd one is needed, since the I Scouting Group went elsewhere.
  • Maybe it's just my time in the Army, but seeing "the I Squadron" or "the IX Corps" reads very oddly to me. When I was at Fort Hood, we always just called the corps HQ on post just plain "III Corps" and the same when I was in Germany referring to V or VII Corps.
    • Hmm, I don't know about this. We always said just "XVIII Airborne Corps", but also "the 82nd Airborne Division" - I've never had any of the copyeditors question that, but it might be worth asking @Dank: about it.
      • Yeah, it was specific to the corps. Divisions were always "the" division. I wonder if it's related to the roman numerals of the corps?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the Russian battleship Slava attacked the Germans in the strait, forcing them to withdraw. Doesn't quite make sense.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments Reviewing by Cinderella 157 edit

Hi, @Parsecboy I have made a couple of edits to the lead. These are mainly for readability and copy edits. If you find these to be generally an improvement, I will continue. However, if they are generally unwelcome, I will back away without prejudice to the rewiew. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, your edits seemed fine to me. I did fix one link. Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the article main text is ambiguous in describing the boilers. The infobox states all 12 are Scotch marine boilers but the text implies that naval boilers are not of this type. I guess that the naval boilers are oil fired, since they are not coal fired but they are all of the scotch type? There is no link to "naval boiler", so it could be clarified.
    • The trouble is, Groener doesn't clarify what the difference is
      • Wittelsbach-class battleship provides a the clue: "with the exception of Wettin and Mecklenburg, which had six Thornycroft boilers, along with six transverse cylindrical boilers". All are coal fired? To this extent, the existing text is a bit ambiguous, in that it suggests that only the cylindrical boilers are coal fired. Could be reworded to make it clearer. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed.
  • Is it worth indicating the maximum firing range of the main armament is available?
    • I don't usually put that kind of detail in the individual ship articles
  • Are the torpedo tubes in single mounts? Is their placement available? I couldn't pick them out on the line drawing.
    • I'll need to double check this.
      • Corrected this.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC) PS, I note that later ships in the class had submerged tubes and their locations are given (more-or-less). If this is a change (as it suggests) it might be worth a comment in this article. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a point I am uncertain about except that it does't follow the usual practice of English ranks in our articles. Several officers are referred to by their rank abbreviation - albeit the German abbreviation. My understanding per our style is that this wouldn't be done for an article pertaining to an English language country? It then begs the question of including the German abbreviation with the translation, eg Konteradmiral (KAdm—Rear Admiral). I am not too hung up on the latter but if the abbreviation is not used, its inclusion is redundant.
    • I don't see anything in WP:MILMOS, MOS:JOBTITLES, or MOS:ACRO that speaks one way or the other on the use of abbreviations for ranks (or any job title). But I don't find it unreasonable to use them - we wouldn't expect an article on medical professionals to use "Doctor" instead of "Dr.", right?
      • I have been chipped for this myself by "experienced" Milhist editors ie use rank (in full) for first appearance of person. But as you point out, there appears to be no such guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added 3 March as the date Mecklenburg ran aground (from that article). This may require an additional citation to support it.
    • I'll have to check.
  • "I Squadron and I Scouting Group visited Britain" but "The German fleet sailed on 13 July". This implies the whole German fleet was there. If this was not the case, suggest: "The German ships sailed on 13 July" else changing that which implies only I Squadron and I Scouting Group was there.
  • "On 6 September, the ships conducted their own parade for the Kaiser off the island of Helgoland." I wonder if this is called a parade or perhaps a "review"? The terminology doesn't seem right to this dumb grunt (who has been in his fair share of parades) - unless it is the naval version of synchronised swimming :).
    • Yes, parade is used in this context.
Resolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a reader, I found the "Construction – 1905" a bit repetitive. There is much the same routine repeated each year. Perhaps the detail might be condensed and highlight the exceptions. This is a suggestion only.

Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have edited "the I Squadron" (and similar) to "I Squadron". My rationale: it is read/spoken as "one Squadron" not "the one Squadron" or "the first Squadron"(since there is not an ordinal applied). This may need to be double checked to see that all instances have been captured once I am done.
  • I note a degree of inconsistency in the dates given when the fleet hosted visitors (including the Russian squadron) at Kiel and the pause in maneuvers? Was this pause until 8 September and not 3 September - as written? "The maneuvers were paused from 31 August to 3 September, as the fleet hosted vessels from Denmark, Sweden and a squadron from Russian, in Kiel from 3 to 9 September.[17] The maneuvers resumed on 8 September and lasted five more days."
    • I'll have to check this.
      • Looked at Hildebrand and that's more or less how they described it: "Waehrend dieser Pause hatte sie vom 31. 8—3. 9. ein schwedisch-daenisches Geschwader zu Gast, ein erstmaliger Vorgang, der um so mehr Beachtung fand, als unmittelbar danach (vom 3.—9. 9.) auch ein russisches Geschwader in Kiel einlief.", which more or less means "during this break, [the fleet] had a Swedish and Danish squadron as a guest from 31 Aug. to 3 Sept., followed immediately by a Russian squadron in Kiel from 3 to 9 Sept." Given the vague wording in the source, see if how I reworded the line works for you. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I read it right, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers advises against mixing dashed date ranges and date ranges given in words? If dased dates are used, these should be an unspaced endash. I may not have picked up on all spaced instances but this might be moot. If I added any inadvertently, my apologies. I will do a double check at the end.
  • The Kaiser's prize is translated as "for shooting". Is this for gunnery or for small-arms proficiency (I suspect the former)?
    • Yes, the former.
      • Suggest changing then to "gunnery" rather than a litteral translation or "Shooting Prize - awarded for gunnery". Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about adding "...accuracy with her main guns." instead?
  • Did being rammed in 1909 result in "no damage"or "no significant damage". That a ramming occurred, begs such a question.
    • Hildebrand et. al. doesn't report any damage, and they generally do.
  • When the Wettin joined the training squadron, was it also joined by Blucher etal from the artillery school too or did they come from elsewhere. The text is ambiguous, though I suspect they came from elsewhere.
    • Those ships were all part of the artillery school.

Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World War I Section

  • "Wettin was mobilized into IV Battle Squadron" Should referenced to IV Squadron that follow be to IV Battle Squadron?
    • It's the same unit, yes, but I don't think it's necessary to put the full name at every usage.
      • "mobilized into" makes it sound like a new formation, as opposed to "redesignated a 'Battle' squadron." It may not be necessary to use the full name at every usage but at present, the text has the appearance of ambiguity/inconsistency (ie a mistake) that could be resolved by a note or rewoding. Such as: "... IV Battle Squadron was redesignated a battle squadron (formally IV Battle Squadron), under the command of VAdm Ehrhard Schmidt." Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • A new formation - yes, that's correct. The HSF only maintained the first three squadrons as active units in peacetime, the VI, V, and VI squadrons were activated at the outbreak of war.
  • "The ships then participated in training exercises in the western Baltic with the ships of the VII Division of the IV Squadron, which included Wittelsbach, Schwaben, and Mecklenburg." Looking at this (and the preceding text in this section), It is not all that clear (it is confused/confusing) and some of the text is perhaps redundant? I will try my best to explain. IV Squadron contaned the five ships of the class (para 1). IV Squadraon was assisted by Blucher in the Baltic (para 1). In para 2, IV Squadron went to the North Sea, back to the Baltic, back to the North Sea Coast and then back to the western Baltic for training. "The ships" in the first part of the quoted text refers to IV Squadron. We have already been told that the five ships of the class were in IV Squadron (but now there are only three).
    • Rewritten for clarity - see how it reads now.
  • para 4 "made VII Division ... available for the operation." Firstly, was Wettin part of VII Division? By possible changes indicated in the previous dot-point, It may need to be made explicit that VII Division is part of IV Squadron. Was IV Scouting Group part of IV Squadron? This paragraph suggests that only part of the squadron was employed in the task and but also refers to the squadron as a whole. This could be clarified.
    • Should be fixed per the line above.
      • Still leaves this part (underlined), which is unclear. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Likely a confusion between Hildebrand and Halpern - Halpern doesn't say with specificity which ships from the IV Squadron took part in the operation.
  • "However, the Russians took no such action.[25] When cruisers from the IV Scouting Group encountered Russian cruisers off Gotland, ships of the VII Division deployed". One sentence says nothing happened the next says the opposite? Perhaps this is a matter of time?
    • The Russian cruisers were just on patrol, not attempting to interfere with the landing.
      • Suggest: "encountered Russian cruisers patrolling off Gotland". This would resolve the apparent contradiction. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sounds fine.
  • "IV Squadron ships sortied on 12 July to make a ..." Sortied to where or in which direction?
    • Hildebrand doesn't say, unfortunately.
      • Suggest something like: "... sortied further [into the Baltic] ..." as it removes the unanswered question. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Works for me.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having referred to Prince Heinrich by title initially, should the title continue to be used?

I have completed the reviev. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • See:"They departed Kiel on the 7 July, bound for Danzig. On 10 July, the ships proceeded further east to Neufahrwassar, along with the VIII Torpedo-boat Flotilla." Neufahrwassar is a quarter of Danzig? It would appear to be an inconsistancy. Apologies for this late addition. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest:"On 10 July, the ships arrived at Neufahrwassar, Danzig, along with the VIII Torpedo-boat Flotilla." Edit made. If acceptable, then all comments are resolved. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That works for me. Thanks again, Cinderella. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cinderella, it's very thorough. Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2018
(UTC)
Thankyou for the responses so far. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Parsecboy, there are two things you were checking on (I put them in bold) plus the late addition, immediately above. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thankyou for working with me on this review. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 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/SMS_Wettin&oldid=826505061"