Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Schwaben

< 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.

Promoted Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Schwaben

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


So I know, I said I was done with German battleships at ACR, but then a certain user sent me a copy of Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe, which means I can probably expand the rest of these to A/FA level. So you've got to put up with more articles coming through the line ;) This is one of the group of early pre-dreadnoughts that didn't see much action during WWI, but unlike the rest of them, she did not serve with the main fleet before the war, but was used as a gunnery training ship. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question regarding the translation of Halbflottille. I have seen it being translated as Demi-Flotilla and Half-Flotilla. Is one of the two more appropriate? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen both as well - I went with Half-Flotilla because that sounds more natural to my ear. But I don't know that one is objectively preferable to the other. Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, have you seen File:SMS Schwaben.jpg? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but unfortunately, for us to use it on en.wiki, it needs to be clearly PD in the US, which basically means we need a pre-1923 date of publication. Which for these old photos can be very difficult to track down. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was ordered under the contract name "D", as a new unit for the fleet" HRS v7 p 139 states "G" please check
    • Ah, yes, that's right. I read the wrong letter in Gröner.
  • HRS also give slightly different dimensions and armament configurations, can you check please
    • It looks like the only measurements that are different are the beam and the draft - Gröner gives the beam including the 15cm guns that point out, and the 7.95m figure is the forward draft, the 8.04m figure is for draft at the stern. I usually just give the forward draft in the individual ship articles. As for the armament, Gröner mentions "twelve machine guns" but states that they were only temporarily fitted rather than a permanent part of the ship's armament, which was why I didn't include them in the technical description.
  • "In 1916, Schwaben was partially disarmed; her battery of 15 cm guns was reduced to six weapons, and only four 8.8 cm guns were left aboard." HRS p 142 states that also the 24cm guns were removed. What happened to the 12 3.7 cms guns?
    • I guess it wasn't clear how I wrote it - I meant for it to say that only the six 15cm guns and four 8.8cm guns remained. It should be clear now. As for the 3.7cm guns, Gröner says they were just temporary, but doesn't say when they were removed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the answers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article is on excellent shape, and I have only the following minor comments:

  • Do we know why the ship was decommissioned in 1911? (and were all the ships of this class placed in reserve at the time as the article implies?)
    • Yes, they were all taken out of service around this time. This is the first article of the class that I've rewritten with Hildebrand et. al., so I can't give you specifics just yet, but they were all taken out of service around this time. And as for why, Dreadnought generally but by 1911 the first eight German dreadnoughts were in service in the I Squadron, which pushed the ten Deutschland and Braunschweig class ships into the II Squadron. The older Wittelsbach and Kaiser Friedrich III classes were no longer front-line ships so there was no need to keep them on active service.
  • "The ship was briefly retained by the Reichsmarine after the end of the war. On 1 August 1919, Schwaben was reactivated for service with the Reichsmarine" - this is a bit repetitive
    • Shortened.
  • "She was converted into a depot ship for F-type minesweepers.[21] She was assigned to the 6th Baltic Minesweeping Half-Flotilla" - likewise as both sentences start with "she" (also, could these sentences be combined?)
    • Merged.
  • "as the minesweeping work was completed by 19 June 1920" - do we know what mine sweeping work this was? (eg, where it took place?) Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apart from "the Baltic", I can't tell you. It's not in Hildebrand et. al., and I can't find anything else that even discusses the post-war minesweeping operations with any detail, let alone the 6th Half-flotilla. Do you think that it would be worth pointing out that Versailles mandated that Germany sweep mines in the North and Baltic Seas after the war? Thanks for your review, Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: G'day, this article looks very good, I just have a few suggestions:
    • the size of the complement is mentioned in the infobox, but doesn't appear to be in the body of the article;
      • Good catch, added.
    • "length of the ship's hull and holed in it several..." --> "length of the ship's hull and holed it in several..."
      • Oops!
    • "She instead remained at Sonderburg and Alsen during the exercises..." --> do we know why?
    • "While steaming in the Flensburg Firth on 10–12 December, she had to assist the training ship Württemberg" --> do we know what the issue was that meant the Wurttemberg needed assistance?
    • "Schwaben and her sisters were not included in the German fleet that assaulted the Gulf of Riga in August 1915, due to the scarcity of escorts. The increasingly active British submarines forced the Germans to employ more destroyers to protect the capital ships." --> I think these two sentences might work better if their order was swapped
      • Yes, that makes more sense.
    • "sent his four surviving battlecruisers in dock for repairs..." --> "sent his four surviving battlecruisers to dock for repairs"?
      • Fixed.
    • in the References, inconsistent - compare "Annapolis" with "Annapolis, MD"
      • Should all be fixed.
    • in the References, most places of publishing are not linked, but one is (Amherst)
      • Removed the link.
    • in the References, is there a place of publishing for the work by Scheer?
      • Added.
    • if possible, for consistency please add OCLCs, ISSNs or ISBNs for Raeder, Scheer and the two journals - www.worldcat.org usually has this information. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: Generally a good account of the ship's history. A few minor glitches caught my eye:
  • Schwaben is linked to the article Swabia but the English name is never mentioned.
    • Fixed.
  • The builder is correctly called Imperial Dockyard throughout the article except for the first mention in the lede were it is called Navy Dockyard.
    • Fixed.
  • Six naval boilers are mentioned in the Description section. I think water-tube boiler is the word you were looking for.
    • Yup.
  • The infobox conversions are not in line with the WPSHIPS guidelines regarding knots and nautical miles.
    • I don't believe that they are - the usage guide advises that outputs should be not specified.
  • The crew is given for the standard Wittelsbach-class ship; when serving as flagship her crew would include an additional 9 officers and 44 enlisted.
    • I only put the standard crew in ship articles - these of course change over the course of any given ship's career, and those figures are better suited to the class article, unless it was for a reconstruction of a specific ship (such as Schleswig-Holstein's career as a cadet training ship).
  • According to the German edition of Gröner I (1982), the torpedo tubes were below the waterline - is that a misprint?
    • Hmm, I'm not sure why I wrote that - they're definitely submerged tubes. Good catch.

Apart from that it's good to go - and Happy New Year to all BTW ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article, ÄDA. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2014 (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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/SMS_Schwaben&oldid=589415910"