Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Schichau-class torpedo boat

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.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Schichau-class torpedo boat

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Schichau-class torpedo boat/archive1

This was a class of dinky little torpedo boats built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy before WWI. They were getting a bit old by the time the war broke out, so were utilised in second-line roles, and therefore didn't see much action, although that is true of most of the Austro-Hungarian Navy in WWI. After the war, a few ended up with the Navy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (after 1929, Yugoslavia), which is why I'm interested in them. This article is part of a Good Topic I'm slowly moving towards Featured. I believe it is comprehensive. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

In the infobox "88–90 t (87–89 long tons) (full load)" Link tonnes, long tons and full load here.
done the first bit, but full load is just another link to the displacement (ship) page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox "1,000 ihp (750 kW)" Link kW.
In the infobox "1,200 nmi (2,200 km; 1,400 mi) at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)" Link both nmi and knots.
linked knots for speed, but otherwise done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox "2 × 356 mm (14.0 in) torpedo tubes" Round the nought here.
a standard displacement of 88–90 tonnes (87–89 long tons) at full load Link both tonnes, long tons and full load here.
equipped with two 356 mm (14.0 in) torpedo tubes Round the nought here.
the 13th Torpedo Boat Group of the 7th Torpedo Craft Division at Pola Are there articles for both units?
the 20th Torpedo Boat Group of the 10th Torpedo Craft Division at Sebenico Same as above.
I doubt very much any of them would be notable, as they would lack significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Captured during the World War II Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 Sea blue here.
with the Italians then the Germans You mean than?
No, then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After all boats of the class were Add "the" before boats.
Not sure that is needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Please translate Bilzer's book. Also there should be a |language=German in the cite book.
Friedman's book has a little typo in its title. It should be "Naval Weapons of World War One". Also you could add an URL to the preview?
A ":W.I." should be add in Vego's book. Also not sure or it is allowed to use -isation in a -ization proper noun like the International Naval Research Organisation?
Not sure what you mean by :W.I."? Changed to US spelling. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
World Cat told me that the original title of the book is "Warship international : W.I.". So I reckon we should add the W.I. in its title. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The full title of the journal is Warship International, not Warship International : W.I. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, why should World Cat claims that the title is Warship International : W.I.? But hey I think that's fine. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure or the source of Niehorster is reliable or not. Could you please explain to me who he/she is/was?
Niehorster has a PhD in history and is an expert on orders of battle, having had several books published on the subject by Military Press. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Sources are reliable and high-quality.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA-5, all done except where noted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

This'll be somewhat of a backwards image review, with some suggested images:

Plenty to choose from! Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nate, I should have done this myself. Picked a side-on view and added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

On a first read through, very good, just some nitpicks I think.

Were all the shipbuilders based in Austria-Hungary? With moving borders I've found it difficult to work out; it might be worth noting?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"were rated as first-class torpedo boats." Is that a technical term, or were they just considered to be very good?
It was the higher class of torpedo boats. Do you think this needs further explanation? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine. It's just my cricket side showing (first-class cricket is an official term). Harrias ^talk 10:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You use "to reach a top speed of 19 knots" but then "at 10 kn" and "at 24 kn", be consistent please.
kn is just the standard abbreviation for knots, the usual arrangement is to give it in full with link at first mention, and abbreviate it thereafter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is any reason for the redesignation given?
Not in sources, but perhaps they thought that ships under a certain displacement didn't need names. This is common in some navies. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"On 7 November 1893, No. 22 collided..." Given that at this point it hadn't been redesignated, would this be better as "On 7 November 1893, Krähe (No. 22) collided..."?
Good idea, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"At the outbreak of World War I, the class was obsolete. No comma needed.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Good work. Harrias ^talk 08:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review, Harrias! Hopefully I have addressed your comments? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, no qualms supporting. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

The second sentence of the lede is virtually identical to the opening of the design and description and I don't think that it's really appropriate for the lede either. Fold the relevant details into the opening sentence along the lines of "...class were a group of 22 torpedo boats built..."
trimmed this as suggested. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest deleting the sentence from the latter and reworking the table, set off in its own little "ships" section, to incorporate builders right after the name.
Unfortunately, Greger doesn't divide up the boats by name/number AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure he does, right there on pages 49–50.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And link laid down and launched in the table headers
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a class article, there should be something about the strategic context surrounding the building of these ships. Were the Austro-Hungarians still in coastal defense mode, influenced by the Jeune Ecole doctrine of defense on the cheap?
I'm a bit lost here. Conway's doesn't really address this. Any suggestions for sources? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Try Sokol, Anthony (1968). The Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Navy. Annapolis: United States Naval Institute OCLC 462208412 and Sondhaus, Lawrence (1994). The Naval Policy of Austria-Hungary, 1867–1918. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. ISBN 978-1-55753-034-9--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Used Sondhaus to create a Background section, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GtG.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A little light on activities before the start of the war, but that probably can't be helped.
Torpedo boat class, local defence forces and triple expansion engine need hyphens
Do Australians use BritEng "ratings" or AmEng "enlisted men", or do y'all just flip a coin?
We are nothing if not flexible. I've seen either, but I'd adopt the AH approach if I knew what that was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better to say licence-built Hothkiss guns with a link, your call though
Re-worded this, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the Cernuschi & O'Hara articles for wartime activities?
very remiss of me, done now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What did the Germans call D2/D10? Have you checked Gröner or Rohwer for info on German use of her?
No idea. I haven't seen any mention of it in German-focussed books. Perhaps she was too small to be of interest? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I'd ask Parsec to check for you as I don't have the relevant volume of Gröner myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a reference to the vessel under either name in either volume of Groener. Also checked Hildebrand's volume that includes school ships, and nothing on it either. Parsecboy (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, now I'm wondering if she was even used by the Germans. I doubt that we'll ever actually find out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very fortuitously, I've just stumbled across a listing of all the Yugoslav ships seized by the Italians and their fates in an old issue of Warship International and have added the relevant info. There are some formatting irregularities as I don't usually use sfn format so my changes may need some reworking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you built a navbox for the ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy already? I know you got one for their WW2 ships, but another one would catch everything that was disposed of before the war. Be sure to incorporate a link to the list so you can get rid of the See also section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The AH one has been added. Will work on a KJRM one, I can't believe I haven't already created it... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Sturm, I reckon I might have got all these now. Let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Cinderella167

Hi, just a few observations that are relatively minor.

In the lead: A total of 22 boats were built by three shipbuilding companies; nine by Seearsenal Pola, six by Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino, and the remaining seven boats were built by Schichau-Werke. It is perhaps a colon, being the start of a list and the second "boats were built" is redundant?
This has now been removed from the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably use c. 1943 instead of the question mark in the infobox.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A radius of action implies to me a two-way trip as cited for combat aircraft as opposed to "range", being a one-way trip (per link also). The infobox reports a range (endurance) equal to the radius of action and would appear to be incorrect.
This is a good point. The source used endurance, which I think equates to range, so changed to match that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote explaining L/23 is a little clunky to me. Suggest: L/23 denotes the barrel's length as multiples of the gun's calibre – i.e the length is 23 times the diameter of the bore. It explains the designation but avoids getting tied down in semantics.
I agree it is a bit clunky, but calibre can mean bore or length. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then suggest: L/23 denotes the barrel's length as 23 times the diameter of the bore. It explains the designation but avoids getting tied down in semantics.
Works for me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
D1 and D3–D4 suggest reword D1, D3 and D4.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Cinderella157! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments support by Pendright

Lede:

Ten of the class were converted to minesweepers between 1911 and 1913, and apart from one that was discarded in 1911, all boats saw active service as part of local defence forces for Adriatic naval bases during World War I, with one being lost in the early days of the war.

This sentence is about 51 words in length, long by most style guides.
Ten of the class "were" converted: Does a collective noun take a plural in Aus/Eng?
Should it not be "in" to minesweepers?
Consider placing the definite article "the" between for and Adriatic.

All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and four were allocated to the navy of the newly created Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia).

In this context, should navy be upper case?

Not sure about that, if it was Navy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, but I don't think so in this combination. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After capture during the April 1941 invasion of Yugoslavia the remaining boat saw service with the Italians then the Germans during World War II.

Consdier a comma between Yugoslavia and the
Consider the word "and" berween Italians and then.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Design and construction:

Design and construction

Retitling to Construction and design would follow the order of the text.

Generally I use Design and construction because that it the order it happens. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it customary to present the general characteristics of a ship before that of its machinery?

Yes, I've fixed this now, I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...sufficient coal to give them a radius ...

Is "radious" the right word here?

No, I think range is better. The source uses the term "endurance", which I think is closer to range. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the time they were built, boats of this class were initially given names, but they were redesignated with numbers ...

This is not a good fit here?

Moved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Service history:

All of the remaining torpedo boats were converted to minesweepers

Consider in to rather than to

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. 28 was discarded in 1911, being transferred to the Austro-Hungarian Army and serving as Tender 28.

"discarded" and "transferred", unclear?

See if it is better now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, Pendright! See what you think of my changes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: All good, supporting! Pendright (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2019 (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.