Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Goeben/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 18:47, 30 September 2010 [1].

---

SMS Goeben

SMS Goeben (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/SMS Goeben/archive1

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The only German battlecruiser to serve outside the North/Baltic Seas, Goeben served in the Mediterranean before the start of World War I and fled to Turkey at the onset of hostilities. Her presence played a part in bringing the Ottomans into the war on the side of Germany and stymied Allied attempts to seize Constantinople. The ship was formally transferred to the Turkish Navy after the end of the war and served on active duty until 1950, and then in reserve into the early 70s, after which she was broken up for scrap. I wrote this article mostly in January and February, after which it passed GA and A-class reviews. The portion on the ship's wartime service has since been overhauled somewhat by Sturmvogel 66, who has access to a couple of specialized sources. I feel the article is of pretty high quality, and with the help of reviewers, we can ensure this article meets the FA standards. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• image review All the images are suitably licensed, either Bundesarkiv or US gov Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment - the ISBN for Langensiepen is probably wrong, they're supposed to be either 10 or 13 digits long (not 11!)
  • "From April 1913 Goeben visited many Mediterranean ports including Venice, Pola, and Naples, before sailing into Albanian waters." -- are there any contemporary newspapers that describe the visits? You might be able to include more information on them.
  • How did Goeben bombard a town in Belgium when she was in the Mediterranean? (you link to Philippeville)
  • "On 7–8 May, Yavuz sortied from the Bosphorus, but fails to locate any Russian ships and is short of ammunition and cannot bombard Sevastopol." -- huh? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• There was one too many "5"s in the ISBN. I'll have to see if there's anything on the port visits. The link to Philippeville has been fixed (though I was tempted to tell you Goeben was using RAPs). I fixed the grammar on the last sentence, but it doesn't seem to flow logically to me—that's something Sturm added so he'll be better able to address that one. Parsecboy (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I tried to cram too too many facts into that sentence. See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—2c Citation consistency
  • Bibliography requires consistent location data (eg: Worth, Richard (2001). Hough, Richard (2003).  ; Campbell, N. J. M. (1978). requires State or Nation).
  • fn61 is missing a space (if you choose Author only below, this will be solved).
  • Barlas & Güvenç and Güvenç & Barlas are cited Author short-title style in the footnotes, all other footnotes are cited Author only style. Consistency: either Author short-title or Author only? Author order for these texts means that Author only would not cause confusion.
  • Dual author footnotes "&" versus "and" consistency, Langensiepen and Güleryüz, but yet Barlas & Güvenç; Güvenç & Barlas Fifelfoo (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • These are all done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• I think I've got everything - thanks for catching all of those. Parsecboy (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - no deadlinks, but one dablink: Liman. PL290 (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think we have an article for what the link was intended, so I removed it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI, Dnieper River mentions the the Dnieper-Bug Canal and its estuary, or liman, in its Geography section; you may consider it worth linking to that article or section. PL290 (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I linked to the article (Liman (landform)). Parsecboy (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The lead is in good shape. Feel free to give me a holler if I can help. - Dank (push to talk) 22:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Support, if the other reviewers are happy with the responses (I can't tell), with the understanding that I'm generally too involved with ship articles to support them at FAC. My only remaining reservation is the "one ship did this, two ships did this, one ship did this" discussion below, but I don't see a way to improve things given the information we've got. Standard disclaimer applies. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions

• I notice you guys are going with SMS Goeben instead of the usual SMS Goeben ("His Majesty's Ship Goeben"). Thoughts? Consistency works better at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• "ready to be launched on 28 March 1911" ... and was launched then, right? - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, that phrasing seems to be tied to the completion of the hull.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Understood that Goeben and Breslau constituted the same division, and that ships tend to travel in formation in wartime ... but it doesn't work for me to say that G and B did this, then G did this and this and this, then "Goeben and Breslau continued their activities ...". It leaves the question hanging in the air what B was up to. Is it possible to cover either both or just G? - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • • The problem is that we sometimes don't know what Breslau did. We only know what they did together and sometimes we are told that they separated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Same problem here: "... he ordered his ships to make for Pola for repairs. Engineers came from Germany to work on the ship. Goeben had 4,460 boiler tubes replaced, among other repairs. Upon completion, the ships departed for Messina." - Dank (push to talk) 22:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I suspect that Breslau was also refitted, but don't know for sure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Same problem here: "Since Goeben could not reach Constantinople without coaling, Souchon headed for Messina. ... The British turned to follow Goeben, but she was able to outrun them, and arrived in Messina by 5 August. ... Italian naval authorities in the port were displeased with the decision to remain neutral, and allowed Goeben and Breslau to remain in port for around 36 hours ... Despite the additional time, Goeben's fuel stocks were not sufficient to permit the voyage to Constantinople, so Souchon arranged to rendezvous with another collier in the Aegean Sea. ... Souchon's two ships departed ...". - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, this one I fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• "As a result, the Mediterranean Division would need to remain in the area." Because there were objectives in the area, or for some other reason? - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • User:John got this one. - Dank (push to talk) 04:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• I changed "secret orders" to "encrypted orders"; my understanding is that they were encrypted. "Secret" generally requires that you add some details so that we know who they were being kept "secret" from; there are many possible answers. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll let Parsecboy make the definitive answer, but I suspect that these were sealed orders meant to be opened only in case of a general war with the British, and not encrypted at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'll revert back to "secret" and wait for details to be added. - Dank (push to talk) 01:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Basically, they were disregarding the Kaiser's prewar orders and keeping him out of the loop. How does it read now? Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Looks good. [Actually it looks perfect, but I don't generally say that, it might inhibit someone from making a change they want to make.] - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Writers are generally welcome to ignore my copyediting comments, which are aimed more at copyeditors (yes, some people actually enjoy this stuff) ... but this one is for the writers: when you're rereading what you wrote and you come across a word that states or implies someone's state of mind, consider whether the reader can figure that out on their own ... if so, then the sentence is generally stronger without the state-of-mind words. So, "Aware that Goeben could not reach Constantinople without coaling, Souchon decided to return to Messina for more coal. ... Refueling in Messina..." is better as: "Since Goeben could not reach Constantinople without coaling, Souchon headed for Messina. [stuff happens along the way, then:] Refueling in Messina..." - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Admiral Laperèyer: correct me if I'm wrong, but if they seem notable and we don't have an article, I usually red-link them. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Red links are fine by me, although they can be a bit hard to reference as first names are not given in many sources for incidental personages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I was thinking the admiral of the France's Mediterranean fleet would probably meet the notability guidelines, is that right? - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
      • It was a misspelling, we have an article ... thanks John. - Dank (push to talk) 04:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• "Breslau spotted the ships without being seen herself": I pay attention to anthropomorphism of ships when I see it ... not just as a copyeditor, I'm also interested in how humans deal with dangerous technology. Anthropomorphism is one way, and you see it all over the place during wartime. Feel free to revert; I went with "The ships were spotted from Breslau", and added an "undetected". - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• When you put quote marks around "transferred", it means in that context that it wasn't really a transfer. What was it, then? - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll defer to Parsecboy, but the initial "gift" seems to have been pretty nominal as the Germans remained in control of both ships and even attacked Russia without the permission or the knowledge of the Ottoman government. The later transfer was real as the Germans turned over control of the ship to the Turks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Did Souchon accept command of the Turkish fleet on 23 September, later, or never? - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• It's not clear to me that the caption "Goeben in the Bosphorus in 1914" is correct. Per the description, the "German Federal Archive often retained the original image captions", which may not be correct. The longer description says the image was (translating) "Goeben at the Stenia dockyards before 1917". If it was after mid-August 1914, then the right name would be Yavuz. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I changed the date from the caption and changed the name to Yavuz, as it's more likely, IMO, that this picture post dates the renaming.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• "At 17:00" ... Turkish time? German time? - Dank (push to talk) 00:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Parsec will have to handle that one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• "work was finished by May" ... by May 1 or by May 31? (Now reworded ... it's the second sentence of SMS_Goeben#1915) - Dank (push to talk) 04:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • A little more: "By May, the monthly data were showing an uptick" means "by May 31" more than half the time (but not always); "By May, we had run out of basic supplies" means "by May 1" more than half the time (but not always). "by" is bad. - Dank (push to talk) 05:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note that User:John asks a question in this edit. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Rephrased to clarify chronology.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• "On 7–8 May, Yavuz sortied from the Bosphorus" [and returned on the 10th]. Did she leave on the 7th or the 8th? - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Source doesn't specify. She left with two other ships, so each could have left on different days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'll change it to "around 7". - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That's from Sturm's OSN source, so he'll have to field that one. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• "the after superstructure": would "the aft superstructure" do just as well? - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure, fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• "Tyulen ... managed to sink one of the colliers. The following day, Tyulen and another submarine tried to attack Yavuz as well, though with no success." The different between "managed to sink" and "sank" is that "managed" suggests Tyulen overcame some specific difficulty ... do you know what the difficulty was, and would the sentence be stronger if you were specific? "tried to attack" likewise suggests that there's something the reader isn't being told ... did they never get close enough to fire? Did Yavuz get in the way? Did they fire and miss? I guess the general principle is: it's better to say what went wrong (or right), or to say nothing, than to use words that suggest something went wrong (or right) without telling us what it was. - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Tyulen and the other sub couldn't get into a firing position, which I have now clarified. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• "one of the three mine holes was repaired."<ref name=Conways/> ... and then she carried the Ottoman Armistice Commission to Odessa. It's certainly possible, being double-hulled, but if so, "hole" is the wrong word, it conveys an image of water streaming into the ship. I removed it because this level of detail didn't grab me, but feel free to re-insert. - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• I don't know what "laid up" means; was she placed in reserve? - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• "lacking in anti-aircraft armament": they lacked this armament, or the armament was lacking, i.e. substandard? - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • AFAIK she only had the 4 x 88mm guns that she'd received during the war, so I'd have to say sub-standard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I made it so. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, a very good, well-written, comprehensive and solidly referenced article. I made a few minor alterations & added some links. Also, it might be a good idea to add somewhere that "Yavuz" means "formidable, resolute". Constantine ✍ 05:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought the ship was named after Selim I? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It was, and Selim I was nicknamed Yavuz, hence the original Ottoman name Yavuz Sultan Selim. However, after the renaming in 1936 (probably an attempt to shed any remaining association with the Ottoman past) it was simply known as Yavuz. Hence it might warrant a small note. Just an idea... Constantine ✍ 06:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment The article states that Goeben and Breslau made up the the Mediterranian division, but there was actually a third ship that was part of the division as well, the SMS Loreley which was used as a station yacht at constantinople. I dont know the particulars about her service, but she was attached to the Mediterranian division at the start of the war.XavierGreen (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Though Loreley was technically assigned to the division, when writers refer to the unit they're not including her, as she was an active participant. I don't see much reason to include her in this article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comments
  • In the Balkan Wars section you have a link to the main article First Balkan War at the top but then in the second paragraph note the service in the Second Balkan War. Why not link to both at the top of the page?
    • I'll let Parsec answer this one, but I'm more inclined to delete the header link since it's linked immediately below.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Removed. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In the section The pursuit of Goeben and Breslau you note that international law allowed the ships to be in a neutral port for only 24-hours. Do we know which international law specifically, and if so why isn't the specific law linked in the section?
    • Yes, and done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Do we have an article for Russian destroyer Leitenant Pushchin? If so, please link.
    • No article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Black Sea operations - 1914 section you note that her holes were plugged with concrete, however I would like to know if this move was due the inability of the ship to have a dock large enough for service or if other factors (like time constraints, neutrality laws, economics, etc) had a hand in this decision as well.
    • As far as I can know the only criterion was the lack of a big enough dock, as is already stated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The coal transports mentioned in the 1915 section, were these commercial vessels or were they built specifically for the navy? If the latter was the case I would suggest seeing if we have an article here for fleet coalers and linking to it. If not, please disregard this comment.
    • AFAIK they were not navy colliers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In the post war section you have a note about the tonnage of the floating dry dock acquired to fix Yavoz, by curious coincidence both the measurements are equal. Please check this, as it is my experience that metric units and other units are rarely equal.
    • Rounding error, currently only 2 significant digits, as metric tons and long tons are actually fairly close.
  • Just out of curiosity, I seem to recall a comparison of the time this ship served in relation to the time that USS New Jersey (BB-62) served, I do not see this in the article and its not a big deal, but am I right to assume that the comparison was in fact located in this article, or was it another article that I am thinking of? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think it was something along the lines "the longest continually-serving dreadnought-type ship" with a note qualifying that New Jersey had served longer but had been in for much of that time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • If you look at an old version of the article (like this one) you'll see it. It strikes me as an odd comparison, as there have been plenty of battleships that spent a lot more time on active service than New Jersey did (forex, USS Texas (BB-35) spent over 40 years on active service, more than double that of New Jersey). Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - with the disclaimer that I have edited this article in the past, adding information from Whitley. Only one quibble: was there any information in your sources on the Kaiser's visit in 1917? Why was in Turkey, etc? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Image review - this is a simple one. All images but one are from the Bundesarchiv; the last one (File:Yavuz (Goeben) battlecruiser Istambul April 1946 - cropped.jpg) was taken by a U.S. Navy photographer, which makes it a work of the U.S. federal government and in the public domain. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.