Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Moltke


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as promoted by Woody (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

SMS Moltke (1910)
This article just passed GA, and was peer-reviewed last month; I think it's at or close to A-class, hence this request. Prose-wise, the article is probably as complete as it can be, it just needs finessing and a thorough copy-edit would be wise. I'd like to get some more pointers/suggestions/comments as to how the article can be improved, as I steer (no pun intended) the article towards FA-class. Thanks for any and all help. Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from The Land Looks very good. Not far off supporting, but have all my comments now, as I would rather say them now than at FAC: Hope these comments are helpful! Regards, The Land (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Characteristics in infobox should be referenced, please
 * The speed mentioned in the design section does not agree with that in the infobox. I'm sure this is down to the powerplant overperforming, but if so this needs to be made clear. Also: is that stated power figure the design power or the trial power - ideally the infobox would state the power at which the speed was achieved.
 * Footnote 5 needs a reference of some description
 * It would be better if a source other than Massie could be found for some of the refs, but (given what is being referenced) this isn't something I'd oppose on
 * In the battles section there are plenty of gun calibres, speeds and ranges which are unconverted. Where a measurement recurs frequently in the same section or paragraph I would only convert the first instance.
 * I Cruiser Squadron, etc - should it be "I Cruiser Squadron" or "the I Cruiser Squadron"?
 * Later Operations para 3: "surface operations transitioned..." is not great prose


 * Thanks for your very specific comments. I've fixed up the infobox, including references for each field and clarifying the speed/hp differences between design and maximum figures. I added a reference for footnote 5, and fixed all (I think) of the figures needing conversion; if I've missed any, can you point them out? As for Massie, I could have used either Tarrant's or Staff's books to cite those as well, but I didn't want to rely too much on one or two book (I already use them quite a lot). I must be missing the instances of "I Cruiser Squadon"/etc. (I used ctrl+f to search the text). Can you specify the paragraphs please? Last, I rewrote the sentence you commented on; is the new wording any better? Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry i meant "I Scounting Group" etc, not 'crusier squadron'. The Land (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm still a little confused though; it looks to me that all of the "I Scouting Group"s have a "the" before them. Are you asking if the "the" is correct? Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Land (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...when I was writing it, I was saying "First" in my head, so "the" seems correct. I could be wrong though. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Queen Elizabeth II" not "Queen Elizabeth the II"... The Land (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but it seems wrong to me to say something like "Beatty's battlecruisers engaged I (read First) Scouting Group". "The" seems more grammatically correct. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another thing to consider: would one say "The 101st Airborne held the crucial road juncture at Bastogne..." or "101st Airborne held..."? I'm not trying to argue or anything, I'm just trying to figure out what is correct. Parsecboy (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I can't say I can see any consistent paterrn of usage that means it should be "I Scouting Group", so let's not worry about it :) The Land (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That works for me. I'm thinking it's probably a matter of taste in most instances, so unless someone else can tell us one way or the other, it's probably fine as is. Parsecboy (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My $0.02: In my admittedly limited knowledge of German, the Roman numeral in front of a unit (often followed by a period) is usually read as an ordinal number, i.e. "I Scouting Group" would be read as "First Scouting Group", making an the definite article the acceptable. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * References comments - (this version)
 * Consistency. (Manual_of_Style) Your refs go from "Author, p. 00" to "Author p00" in a few spots.
 * The second sentence of Note 2 is rather confusing. Is that just me?
 * No links to check with the link checker :)
 * Otherwise, refs look good! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed up the inconsistent references; do you have any suggestions as to make the second note more clear? Basically, I was just trying to explain how the Von der Tann was "unique". Yeah, I generally prefer dead-tree sources when I can get ahold of them. Parsecboy (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ...not really. The Land would be a better person to ask. Sorry... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably because when Von der Tann was started there were only funds for one cruiser that year, and when the next two cruiser slots came around in the building schedule laid down by the German Navy Laws, the Navy thought they could get away with spending the money on an increased armament. The Land (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's essentially what Staff's book says: they had enough money to either upgrade to eight 30.5cm guns or add a 5th pair of 28cm guns. Tirpitz and the Construction Department wanted more guns instead of bigger ones, so that was the decision. Parsecboy (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Random shots Support
 * I'm going through and adding fact tags to unreferenced paras. If I was wrong in adding one, please remove it :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead, I'll add sources as you identify sections that need them. Parsecboy (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've added citations for the fact tags you placed in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Article is ok with regards to dismbig and external linking. Will render opinion after above issues have been dealt with. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think that most of the issues have been dealt with, and those that have not need some further clarification (i.e., the I Cruiser Squadron bit, etc.). Parsecboy (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments: Support
 * In the section "Battle of Heligoland Bight" what are the "beleaguered German cruisers"? I see them listed farther down, but some context for Moltke and Von der Tann sortie would be helpful. Also, this section and "Battle of the Gulf of Riga", unlike the rest, don't have a link in them. Is there a reason for that? I do see that both articles are linked, but it seems like for consistency all (that have articles, at least) should be the same.
 * In the section "Bombardment of Yarmouth" the sentence beginning On 2 November 1914, Moltke, Seydlitz, the flagship of Rear Admiral Hipper, Von der Tann, and Blücher, … is (slightly) ambiguous. Is it the four named ships and Hipper's flagship? I'm guessing not, but to avoid any potential ambiguity, it could be rephrased as On 2 November 1914, Moltke, Hipper's flagship Seydlitz, Von der Tann, and Blücher, …
 * That's all for now; I'll finish reviewing tomorrow. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments; I expanded the Heligoland section to give a little more context to that which Moltke and Von der Tann were responding. I also fixed the other things you mentioned. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After taking a look at the rest of the article I only found a few things, most of which were minor and I fixed already. The one issue that ought to be taken care of is inconsistent use of either knots, kts, or kn in the article. (All three are used in the Jutland section.) I'd recommend the completely unambiguous knots. Other than that I have no objections and have changed to support. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help with the article. I fixed the knots/kts/kn issue per your suggestion to use just "knots". Parsecboy (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Comments
 * I reviewed this for GA, and can't see much wrong with it. Here are some general comments:
 * 'Moltke was damaged several times during the war: the ship was hit by heavy-caliber gunfire at Jutland, and torpedoed twice by British submarines while on fleet advances.' - What's a fleet advance? Can it be clarified?
 * The third para in the first section is quite short and squeezed quite badly by the infobox; can it be comgined with the second one?
 * 'Aurora challenged Kolberg with a search light, at which point Kolberg attacked Aurora, and scored 2 hits. Aurora returned fire, and scored 2 hits on Kolberg in retaliation' - Shouldn't '2' be 'two'?
 * The Battle of Gulf Riga section is very short - is there any more information that can be added, even if it's just some background. It just seems off-the-cuff really.
 * It seems to be that 'While the fleet was consolidating in Wilhelmshaven, war-weary sailors began deserting en masse. As Von der Tann and Derfflinger passed through the locks that separated Wilhelmshaven's inner harbour and roadstead, some 300 men from both ships climbed over the side and disappeared ashore' - should start with 'However', given the previous sentences in the paragraph.
 * The Wiki Commons box seems out of place and is making a big white gap appear by the references - is there anywhere it can be placed to avoid that?
 * Excellent article overall, just a few small things to do. Skinny87 (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review, Skinny. I fixed the "2"s, the short para in the design section, and the "however" bit. I also moved the commons link (how does that look now? It wasn't causing a problem for me before, but it's probably just a monitor difference issue.) As for "fleet advances", it's a portion of the fleet going out on some sort of mission, be it a sweep for enemy patrol craft, to conduct a raid, or what have you (for instance, there was a fleet advance in April 1916 to ensure the safe return of the auxiliary cruiser Möwe). As for the Gulf of Riga, there seems to be pretty scant coverage in the books I've got&mdash;in fact, Massie, Tarrant, and Bennet don't mention it at all. Bennet's comes closest, with an off-the-cuff remark that the British submarine E-1 damaged Moltke during the operation, but that's it. I'll have to see what Google Books can provide me. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I found an excellent account of the battle, and expanded the section. Oddly enough, the section in this article is now larger than the main article...perhaps I should expand it a bit as well. Parsecboy (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, moving to support!


 * Comment
 * When you keep mentioning Helmuth von Moltke and linking to different people, if would be better if you kept the disambiguator in the link visible to avoid confusion.
 * On a related note, both of them are overlinked. Just link them each once, maybe twice far apart, and distinguish between them with the Younger and the Elder.
 * "It was decided that another raid on the English coast was to be carried out," Who decided it?
 * In the Dogger Bank section, when you're mentioning the admirals commanding the various parts of the British force, please mention their first names. I don't think that most of them have been introduced yet, and only referring to them by their last names implies that they've been mentioned before in the article.
 * "The renewed gunfire gained Beatty's attention, who turned his battlecruisers westward." Who, in this case, refers incorrectly to the attention, it should be rephrased, perhaps as "The renewed gunfire gained Beatty's attention, so he turned his battlecruisers westward."
 * "It was not until 1:00, after having steamed far ahead of the Grand Fleet, was Moltke able to made good her escape." Awkward, rephrase please.
 * The text can be a bit awkward at times, it would benefit from a copy-edit for style.
 * Can some images be added between the Indefateguable and the Zeppalin? It gets to be kind of wall of text-ish.
 * A couple of images should be moved to the left, for balance.


 * Please get these fixed and it'll be ready for A-Class. – Joe Nu  tter  16:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments; I fixed some of the Helmuth von Moltke links as you suggested, and clarified the "decision" bit. I've added the first names for Commodores Tyrwhitt and Goodenough and Rear Admiral Moore. The grammatical problem with Beatty's attention and the issue with Moltke's escape have been fixed. Unfortunately, there just aren't any images of the ship during the war that aren't already in the article. File:Batalla de Dogger Bank.jpg is unclear in its copyright status, so it shouldn't be used. I did add a photo of Seydlitz, but I don't think there's much more that can be done on that issue, until someone can find suitably-licensed images. Parsecboy (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * True, we don't know who the author was, and thus when they died. Otherwise all the changes look good, images are balanced and the addition of the one of the Seydlitz helps, and the text is easier to read. Support. – Joe N  utter  22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Asking... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.