Talk:SMS Leipzig (1905)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 16:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this soon. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Again with the 'fourth' in the lede. I assume its the 6th, but you are the expert.
 * Drat. I need to be more careful...

Pictures are fine.

" The ship was cruising off the west coast of Mexico at the outbreak of World War I in August 1914 to show the flag in the Americas." 'The last part of 'to show the flag in the Americas' is confusing and needs context.
 * Does a link to wikt:show the flag help?

" At 18:07, von Spee issued the order "Fire distribution from left", meaning that each ship would engage its opposite number. The Germans fired first, at 18:34.[12]" - The last sentence could be merged, but do to the inline citation policy it should be cited as it is an order attributed to Spee. I'll let you do as you wish with the sentences.
 * Merging the sentences seems fine to me.

"At 18:49, Glasgow hit Leipzig, but the shell was a dud and did not explode." - Again, I think a cite could be helpful for future readers.
 * The page range was somewhat long, so I just split it up a bit.

"The officers could not find the ship, and did not notice the debris in the water, and so no rescue operations were begun." This sounds like an editorial note, attribution I think would be required in this case.
 * Who should I attribute it to? Staff? Parsecboy (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Now you are going to hate me for this, as I know I was already being annoying about the inline citations.

"At 19:20, Haun issued the order to scuttle his wrecked ship; the British approached and opened fire on the stricken cruiser at close range, killing large numbers of the crew. The British also destroyed a cutter filled with survivors, killing all of them. Leipzig finally capsized and sank at 21:05, with Haun going down with his ship. Only eighteen men were pulled from the freezing water.[27]" How about citing where this account comes from and then doing the attribution properly without putting in-lines each time? If someone takes issue with the firing on the cutter and killing all the survivors, that would be fair to require a cite. I'll give you some leeway here to find some way to head off claims under WP:LIKELY.
 * Staff's footnotes list Auf See Besiegt and Der Krieg zur See: 1914-1918 in the relevant pages, but not for the specific points, just for quotes from participants and the like. What would you like to see here? Parsecboy (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Other then that, it looks good. Putting it on hold for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

For both issues above: If no rescue operations were begun and the ship wasn't found, I'd just state that. Its hard to cite things that talk about things not happening. I'd just make it as neutral and bland as possible, not to impose on what the crew knew/saw or didn't know/saw. 'Unaware of the sinking of the Good Hope, no rescue operations were mounted by the crew.'

The notes on the matter may be better, I cannot transpose and read it through. I just want to make sure that no one questions the fact that the Germans were unaware of the sinking or implies not assisting the crew as there mission was to sink it. If a record or account says that they could not find the Good Hope and think she slipped away, that would be better for context. As it is hard to see in stormy conditions, an account is probably the best we can source.

Though Questia has a note in The Grand Scuttle: The Sinking of the German Fleet at Scapa Flow in 1919. "Then the Good Hope came under the concentrated fire of the two German heavy cruisers and exploded. The hulk drifted away and was never seen again." Which is tiny, but might be a note about the British not being able to mount a rescue.

I could probably pass this, but let's try a bit more. Its not really a problem, but I want it to be safe from scrutiny.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I lost track of this in the business of the holidays, but I think your proposed wording is fine (though I made a slight change so it reads "no rescue operations were mounted by Leipzig's crew" to avoid any potential confusion. Parsecboy (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Aye, me too. Passed. Sorry for the delay. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)