Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Gneisenau/archive1

SMS Gneisenau

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This is another German warship, an armored cruiser built in the 1900s. Gneisenau ended up as part of the East Asia Squadron and took part in the Battles of Coronel and the Falkland Islands early in World War I, helping to sink a British armored cruiser at the former and being sunk by British battlecruisers at the latter. I initially wrote the article in 2011, then rewrote it in 2019, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review in early 2020. The article is part of the Armored cruisers of Germany Good Topic. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Gerald Waldo Luis
Overall, it seems like a fine article to be bronzed, Comrade !  Gerald WL  16:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "The two Scharnhorst-class cruisers..." Link "Scharnhorst-class cruisers"?
 * There's a main article link directly above that line, I think repeating it would be a little much.
 * I don't have much expertise in ships, but it appears that Gneisenau is referred as "She." Correct me.
 * Yes, that's acceptable per WP:SHE4SHIPS
 * Gosh, that's amazing. Wish I could call the 747 a She.  Gerald WL  17:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Ludolf von Uslar" is redlinked, but apparently there's a deWiki article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludolf_von_Uslar -- maybe interlink?
 * Similar with "Arthur Graf Rex" (de: Arthur Alexander Kaspar von Rex), and "Günther von Krosigk."
 * I used to use the inter-language links, but advised me against it in a previous FAC. I can't remember exactly why now (something to do with making link cleanup harder once the article is created here, I think?) but perhaps he can remind me.
 * Well I don't see any problem with interwiki-linking, I've been doing it for God-knows-how-long.  Gerald WL  17:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "When World War I..." Link "World War I"?
 * Good idea
 * "St. Quentin Bay" is redlinked. Apparently there's an article called San Quentin, California. Maybe...?
 * That's a different place - the one we want is in Chile
 * Ah, I see.  Gerald WL  17:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Blanco Encalada" is redlinked, but there's an article called Chilean ironclad Blanco Encalada.
 * That's the wrong ship, but the right one was incorrectly titled, which I've fixed.
 * Thanks Gerald! Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest scaling up the line drawing and all maps
 * Done, and I've filed a request here to get an SVG version of the Falklands map.
 * Suggest adding alt text
 * I think I've added them all, though I never know what's useful text.
 * File:HMS_Infexible_Falklandy.jpg: what's the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * According to this, 24 September 1973 - I'll remove the template from the image since it's redundant to the UK tag anyway. Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie
I've copyedited a little; revert anything you disagree with. That's it for a first read through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Gneisenau initially served with the German fleet in I Scouting Group, though her service there was limited owing to the development of the battlecruiser, which the less powerful armored cruisers could not effectively combat. Accordingly, Gneisenau was assigned to the German East Asia Squadron, where she joined her sister ship Scharnhorst. I think the lead could do a better job than this of summarizing what's in the body -- I didn't understand till I read the body that the re-assignment occurred after four year due to rising tensions with the UK and the development of the battlecruisers, which were not a factor in 1906.  How about "Gneisenau initially served with the German fleet in I Scouting Group, but by 1910 the Royal Navy's development of the battle-cruiser..."?
 * I tweaked it slightly, but I'm not so sure about adding a reference to the Anglo-German naval race in the lead, as that seems to be a bit in the weeds for the intro.
 * I think that's enough to make it apparent to the reader what's going on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a possible link for "General Department"? I assume it's some German governmental office.
 * No, we don't have a link for that
 * The ship was protected by an armored belt that was 15 cm of Krupp armor: a bit repetitive. Could we make this "The ship was protected by a 15 cm belt of Krupp armor"?
 * Works for me
 * It's not clear to me why we mention the Fukoku Maru's presence in Ponape. I see you mention "all available colliers" further on, and a rendezvous with several colliers, but does the mention of this collier and not the others add anything to the reader's understanding?
 * Have added a bit to clarify the ship's significance
 * That works but the efn there is now broken. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch, fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The map showing the route of the East Asia Squadron in 1914-15 doesn't mention the Gneisenau or Scharnhorst directly; I assume one or both is the "Hauptgeschwader" line, but that should be clearer to non-German speaking readers. Similarly can the other German words in the legend be glossed, or else could you update the image?
 * I don't know how to edit the file, so I'll put in a request at the image lab. But they haven't responded to my request on the 10th for an SVG version of the Falklands map yet, so it will be a while.
 * OK; I'm not going to hold up support for this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fear of mines in the harbor prevented Spee from seizing the coal in the harbor. Our article on the action says the French burned the coal stocks.
 * Clarified
 * The second shell damaged some of the ship's cutters: does "cutters" refer to small craft carried on board? A link would be helpful; our article on cutter (boat) doesn't mention this as a possibility since the 18th century so I wasn't sure this was the intention.
 * Yes, that's the right link - that article isn't very well-developed, unfortunately
 * Nevertheless, the maneuver allowed Spee to turn back north: why "allowed"? From the linked battle article it appears Spee decided to engage again because he couldn't escape; that's not clear from this description.
 * The previous sentence (and some of the preceding paragraph) covers Spee's inability to escape. If Sturdee had his druthers, he'd have kept out of the effective range of the German guns for the entire engagement, but Spee's maneuvering allowed him to close the range - that's what the "allowed" line refers to.
 * I hadn't understood this, and I think it could be clearer in the article for readers not familiar with naval battles. In the previous paragraph you say "Sturdee attempted to widen the distance"; I assumed he was temporarily trying to get away, not that he was trying to reach a position from which his armament would be effective without being in range of Spee's guns.  Adding a few words at that point, or else making the point about the range of each ship's guns earlier in that section to set the stage for what each commander would be likely to do, would make this clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a line on that, so hopefully it will be clearer now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * including two of Spee's sons: Spee died in the same battle so suggest making this "including Spee and two of his sons". There's also an interesting factoid in the Battle of the Falkland Islands article that seems like it might be worth using here: search for "One of Gneisenau's officers".
 * Done on Spee and his sons, I don't know that the other is worth adding.
 * In this case, the L/40 gun is 40 calibers, meaning that the gun is 45 times as long as it is in bore diameter. Surely 40 times as long?
 * Fixed, good catch


 * ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got busy with overhauling an old FA in fairly rough shape, and then with year-end stuff at work. Thanks for the ping. Parsecboy (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Support, though I spotted a couple of minor points on a second read-through: -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I made this edit to avoid a repetition of "after which", but I'm not sure this flows as well as possible; feel free to tweak it.
 * How does this strike you? Parsecboy (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * significantly outclassed older armored cruisers like Gneisenau: I don't think we can just say "older" here; the ship was only launched two years earlier. Perhaps "of an older design"?
 * I think simply removing "older" might be the easiest solution. Parsecboy (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree on both points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dumelow
Dipping my toe back into reviewing after a very long time, so I may be out of touch with current standards. Looks good to me and I would have no qualms supporting on prose; though I had a few queries:
 * In the lead you have "Named for the earlier screw corvette of the same name" and the main text "christened Gneisenau, in honor of the earlier steam corvette Gneisenau". Suggest that both should be either "steam corvette" or "screw corvette".
 * Good idea
 * The ships marked a significant increase in combat power over the predecessors of the Roon class, being more heavily armed and armored reads a little odd to me. It could be construed that we are discussing the predecessors to the Roon class.  Is their a way to reword this?
 * How about "over their predecessors, the Roon class..."?
 * Yep, good for me - Dumelow (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Gneisenau was 144.6 meters (474 ft 5 in) long overall, and had a beam of 21.6 m (70 ft 10 in), a draft of 8.37 m (27 ft 6 in)., would read better to me as "...long overall, had a beam of 21.6 m (70 ft 10 in) and a draft of...".  Though maybe this is a ship thing?
 * Fixed
 * The following year passed uneventfully for Gneisenau, with the only event of note being a fleet cruise to Norway in July. can the year be described as uneventful if, in September, she was reassigned to the East Asia Squadron?
 * Changed to "The first half of the following year..."
 * I’m not sure how well “first half” works with the second part of the sentence mentioning a July event? - Dumelow (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See how it reads now. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Gneisenau went into dry dock in Tsingtao for annual repairs in the first quarter of 1912. If the repairs were annual, it seems strange to mention them in 1912 but not any other year.
 * That year is the only one that Hildebrand et. al. have details for, unfortunately
 * Fair enough - Dumelow (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The four cruisers, accompanied by Prinz Eitel Friedrich and several colliers, then departed the central Pacific, bound for Chile. On 13 August, Commodore Karl von Müller, captain of the Emden, persuaded Spee to detach his ship as a commerce raider. On 14 August, the East Asia Squadron departed Pagan for Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The first sentence seems to say the whole East Asia Squadron left Pagan for Chile; the second sentence says that one of the cruisers was detached to raid trade routes and then the third sentence that (presumably) the three remaining cruisers and Prinz Eitel Friedrich left Pagan (again?) for the Marshall Islands (which are, I think, still the Central Pacific?). I was left a bit confused about when the ships left Pagan and if Emden was detached at Pagan or en route to Chile/the Marshall Islands.
 * Good catch, fixed
 * The four cruisers, accompanied by Prinz Eitel Friedrich and several colliers, then departed Pagan on 15 August, bound for Chile. On 13 August, Commodore Karl von Müller, captain of the Emden, persuaded Spee to detach his ship as a commerce raider. While en route to Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands the next morning, Emden left the formation with one of the colliers is it the morning of the 16 August that the ‘’Emden’’ left formation? I think it’s currently a little ambiguous as the previous sentence mentions 13 August. I think the second sentence would also benefit from “had” prior to “persuaded” (as it is out of strict chronological order) - Dumelow (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's in correct chronological order now. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * After the battle, Spee took his ships north to Valparaiso. Since Chile was neutral, only three ships could enter the port at a time; Spee took Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Nürnberg in first on the morning of 3 November, leaving Dresden and Leipzig with the colliers at Mas a Fuera. There, Spee's ships could take on coal while he conferred with the Admiralty Staff in Germany to determine the strength of remaining British forces in the region. "There" means Valparaiso but due to the last place mentioned being Mas a Fuera there is ambiguity.
 * Clarified
 * In the Battle of the Falkland Islands section there is a photograph of "Battle of the Falkland Islands" but the text only mentions that "boats from Invincible picked up 187 men from Gneisenau"
 * Hildebrand only mentioned Invincible, for some reason, but it's clear both ships participated - Hough confirms as much.
 * Glad you worked out what I meant there, I copy pasted the section header instead of the caption ... - Dumelow (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

- Dumelow (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dumelow. Parsecboy (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Dumelow (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

 * Is there a reason Hough lacks a publisher location?
 * Nope, just an oversight
 * Bennett: are you sure that the publisher location is London?
 * Good catch - that was a lot of articles that needed to be corrected.


 * Spot checks; cites:


 * 43: My copy of Bennett, a different edition, does not mention 10:45. It does mention 11:00.
 * Good catch - Bennett does say 11:00, but Staff has 10:45; apparently I forgot to add that citation when I rewrote that section
 * 44: check.
 * 52: the article has "allowing some 200 of the survivors time to escape". Bennett has "270 to 300". The 200 is the estimated number still alive when the British ships reached the scene.
 * Bennett contradicts himself there (or the source he's quoting does) - earlier on the page the quoted source says "Within a few minutes we were up to the survivors, some 200 men supporting themselves with hammocks, belts, spars, etc." I suppose we ought to include the range of estimates he provides.
 * As I read Bennett, a German source says there were 270 to 300 men in the water as they abandoned ship, but "during half an hour's immersion many perished". A British source states that by the time they reached the survivors there were 200. I don't see a contradiction or a need for a range. You already have 187 picked up, which matches the "some 200". I suggest changing "allowing some 200 to 300 of the survivors time to escape" to '270 to 300'.
 * Works for me.


 * 23: check.
 * 45: should the cite not cover two pages?
 * For Staff? No, that's all on p. 66
 * OK. My ecopy has me scratching my head, but fair enough.


 * 56: check.

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gog. Parsecboy (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One counter response above. You have done a good job of conveying some of the drama of the encounter. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gog! Parsecboy (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)