Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Peer review/SMS Von der Tann

SMS Von der Tann

I've recently rewritten and significantly expanded the article, and added nearly a dozen sources and quite a few citations. I'm working on tracking down suitable copyright-status photos to add to the article, although there are already a couple currently. I'm looking for some pointers or suggestions to continue to improve the article, with the aim of eventually reaching FA-quality. Thanks in advance for all comments. Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

• Comments
  • The first thing you might consider doing is finding the conversion templates so those who can;t think in metric can get an idea of what the size, weight, gun calibure, and so forth are.
  • Link all dates with a day, month, and year.
  • If I spot anything else when I get home today I will let you know (reading for school, you see; we get our reading assignments on monday :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The figures should all have the conversion templates now, and I've linked most of the dates as you have suggested. Thanks for your comments so far, and I anticipate more suggestions later on. Parsecboy (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good. I spotted some instances of figures that still do not have metric/standard measurements in tandum, and I think the article needs some work with regards to WP:HYPHEN. If I recall correctly Tony1 (talk · contribs) and Epbr123 (talk · contribs) are pretty good at finding and fixing these two points; I would suggest leaving a message on either users talk page.

Ok, I think I've got all of the conversion templates in place now, let me know if you find one I've missed. I've also added in the – for the date ranges, as Climie.ca pointed out below. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• After two days of searching, I have finally relocated an article I think you can use as a blueprint of sorts for this battleship : HMAS Melbourne (R21). Melborne was an aircraft carrier, but like SMS Von der Tann was a unique vessel and as such contains a rather well developed section going into her background, construction, and equipment in addition to her service history. This may be useful for your effort to push the article to FAC by giving you a better idea of what you will need to do insofar as article building goes. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Brad101

Other than what Tom suggested I don't see any glaring issues with this article. I bumped it up to B class as it was certainly worthy of it. You may want to expand on the fate of the ship a bit further than two sentences however. You should run this through GA. What are the prospects for further expansion of the text for an A or FA run? --Brad (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added some information about the desertion of crew members shortly before the end of the war, but further information relating to the scuttling and scrapping appears to be rather sketchy (in fact, information about the ship overall is pretty scarce; most of the books I've used are actually about the battles in which the ship participated; only Staff's book goes into any detail about the ships themselves.) The text can probably be expanded, but I wouldn't say dramatically. As I stated above, details are often few and far between. I'll see what further information I can scrounge up. Thanks for your comment. Parsecboy (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added some additional details about the specific time line of events during the battle of Jutland, as well as some relatively minor fleet advances in 1916 before Jutland. I've also added some additional design information, relating to the ship's machinery and powerplant, etc. I'm skeptical that much more can be added with the sources I've currently got (and until I start speaking/reading German, I've probably exhausted the number of references available on the topic). Parsecboy (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did a second reading and caught one minor double wording issue which I fixed. I think you're looking good for GA after the image tag fix. Even the minor expansion on a few topics helped to make things read smoother. --Brad (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Image:SMS von der Tann.jpg has an expired tag. That will be an issue for GA.

Yeah, I had intended on removing the non-linked instance of "raid on", but I must've gotten distracted before hitting the save button. Thanks for catching that. I've gone ahead and just removed the questionably licensed illustration for now, and left a note on the uploader's talk page on Commons; hopefully s/he can update it accordingly, and it can be re-added to the article. Thanks again for your comments and suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cam

I think Tom & Brad have summed up most of the stuff. However, there are a few things that caught my eye:

• Would it be possible to expand the lead, as it is currently quite short?
• You use "AP" & "HE" as abbreviations in the section concerning the design of Von-Der-Tann; it should probably be the full word. Although you and I understand military jargon, an average reader probably won't.
• In several of the sections, you have two very-short paragraphs (some of two sentences or less). Would it be possible to combine these into a single paragraph, so as to not make it look so (for lack of a better term) "skimpy"?
• "causing Von der Tann to ship 600 tons of water" --> "causing Von der Tann to take in 600 tons of water", just for clarity
• For times, you shouldn't leave them as not having a ":". 1853 should be 18:53, etc.
• for date ranges, — should be used.
• In the "References" section, would it be possible to add the locations of the publishers?

Other than that, looks pretty good. All the best, Cam (Chat) 07:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed most of the minor points, including the AP/HE, combining short paragraphs, "ship" -> "take in", colons for times (an old Army habit :) ), longer dashes for date ranges. I've added publishing location for the books I actually have, the others I found through google books, and they don't provide that specific bit of information. I'll see what I can do with the introduction. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also expanded the introduction, take a look now and let me know what you think. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Aye, mucho mejor señor (you can look that up on your own). That should do it. Excellent expansion in such a short time. Good luck in the future with this article. Cam (Chat) 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is much better ;) Thanks for your help in getting it there. Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Land

Very nice! Always good to see another capital ship article better-developed.

• I agree the lead could be longer (would need to be for FA status, for instance)
• The design section could be more detailed. More on the design process would be nice. Also there is some technical vocabulary which needs to be explained or wikilinked (battle line, pivot mounts, staggered turrets).
• The article could do with a few more wikilinks throughout (dreadnought, steam turbine, for instance).
• Robert Massie is not a very good source. I don't think he is too bad for the statements where you rely on him, but I'd prefer it if a better account of the relevant incidents could be found.

Regards, The Land (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've indicated above, I've expanded the lead section, can you take a look and offer any suggestions? As for the design process, there just isn't much information on it in English, and I don't yet speak German. The only book that really goes into any kind of detail is Staff's book, which is fairly short, and nearly all of his bibliography is from German works, and the German archives.

I've added a bunch of links, do you think they're sufficient, or does the article need more? What's wrong with Massie? I was unaware that his works were considered sub-standard. I can tell you that the sailors who deserted prior to the mutiny isn't mentioned in any of the other books, and many of the specific details about the timelines of Heligoland, for example, aren't mentioned in the other books I've got. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead's better. Regarding the design section, the main question in my mind is how much the designers were influenced by the [[Invincible class battlecruiser], details of which were gradually becoming known to the Germans in 1906-8. Other things you could go into, if you have the information, might be the arrangements of big guns which were considered, or how much armour Tirpitz favoured...

Massie has a fair few of errors in detail. I only notice them in shipbuilding, because that's a subject where I have detailed sources to hand. However, it indicates that they might extend to other areas. I am fairly confident that if you get it to FA, someone will complain that Massie isn't a good enough source. The Land (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only major impact of knowledge of the Invincible class was the switch to larger caliber guns. Von der Tann seems to be more of an incremental outgrowth of Blucher; the ship is basically a slightly larger, slightly faster Blucher with bigger guns and thicker armor. This is essentially a result of the Kaiser getting his way, irt to the provision that VdT be able to fight in the line. On the other hand, had Tirpitz gotten his way, VdT most likely would've come out looking like German copies of the Invincibles. Of course, one could argue that Blucher herself was a response to the erroneous information the Germans had on Invincible, but by the time VdT was designed, the details of the Invincibles were already known. This, of course, is OR on my part. However, the only explicitly stated indication I've seen in the books I've got of influence from the British ships is again, the jump from 8.2" to 11" guns.

As for Massie, I didn't know he's known for having errors in his work. I'll see if I can find some other sources that have the same information. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found and added a source that corroborates the timeline for Heligoland Massie provides, in Strachan's The First World War, so I'll assume that it's fine to continue to use the cite from Massie at least for that paragraph. I'll continue looking for other sources to corroborate/correct what else I've got from Massie. Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Harlsbottom

Nothing major at all. However, in an article about a German battle cruiser it would be nice to have more German quotes in it. The map from "Germany's High Sea Fleet in the World War" is a nice touch though.

• The contention that Von der Tann had three turrets in operation "before the end of the battle". Hipper in G.39 (after moving his flag from Lützow) sent a message to Scheer at 0305 on 1st June - by which time the battle was over - stating that Von der Tann had "only two heavy guns serviceable". (Tarrant. Jutland: The German Perspective. p. 318) --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 13:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some suitable quotes to add to the article. As for the question about turrets being repaired during the battle, I got the timeline from Staff's book, which uses mostly German sources for the information, but does not specifically cite it in a footnote. I have seen in other books that only two turrets were rendered operational by the end of the battle. Perhaps the explanation is that one of the three turrets that were repaired during the battle later failed/been damaged again, by the time Hipper had made his report to Scheer. I have not before seen the claim that only two guns were serviceable, only of there having been either two or three turrets having been repaired. Of course, none of the latter explicitly state that both guns in all turrets were in working order, but I would assume that to be the case, unless it had been otherwise stated. It would appear that further investigation is required to get to the bottom of these conflicting reports. Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tarrant gets his info from a translation by the Admiralty Naval Intelligence Division of the more important signals passed between the Germans at Jutland; I can't think of any reason (for once!) to question its veracity. Of course, there could be subtle errors of omission here - the sources referring to turrets could well be correct - three turrets were working before the end of the battle, but only two of the guns out of six could be used, i.e. both views could be correct?

And something dear to my heart, have you checked Google books? I've just found in a preview of a biography of Hipper a quote from Von der Tann's captain at the Scarborough raid on the problems posed by poor coal, and then some sourced information on how the battle cruiser suffered quite badly in trying to keep fires lit at jutland. And that was just from typing "Von der Tann Jutland" into the search box, and was the first source I looked at (ignoring the usual run of the mill Indefatigable materiel). --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 01:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's along the lines of what I was thinking re: the guns/turrets discrepancy. Yes, the Tarrant cite doesn't seem to be questionable in its veracity, although I'm wondering if it's a possibility of a translation error on the Admiralty's part? I have seen the assertion that two turrets were later returned to working order by the end of the engagement. Again, it could be a simple miscommunication, as you suggest.

Yes, I am well familiar with Google Books; that's how I came across Scheer's book (and the nice illustration I lifted from it :). Can you provide the link to the book preview you mentioned? I'd like to take a look at it. Thanks for your comments and contributions to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's something interesting; I was re-reading through Massie's book, and came across a mention of Von der Tann, stating that the guns were firing so fast that "the guns had become so hot that they jammed in their slides and would not return to firing positions" (p 604). I wonder if this is the discrepancy between the turrets being operational, but the guns being jammed. Parsecboy (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Try this link (it may work, it may not depending where you are); http://books.google.com/books?id=jlmkFfJDDKQC&pg=PA56&dq=von+der+tann+jutland&lr=&as_brr=3&sig=ACfU3U2ksvgBccUlHEaDeHW7AiQkta6Y-w

As to Massie, I assume he's referring to the run-out gear except he doesn't directly refer to it (I just checked). I may as well go on record as saying that I don't think Massie would be a good source on a FA run, because as The Land points out he gets things wrong in one area he'll get them wrong in another - and he has in multiple instances. Not that this applies to the sources in this article, but so many people read Castles of Steel then think they're an expert and then somehow misinterpret Massie even more than he managed to misinterpret the record in some cases. Tarrant has some more on Von der Tann which I'll add later. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 10:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The link didn't work; it said I had reached the limit of my page viewing. I have found some other books that I had somehow missed in earlier searches though.

Massie is most likely referring to the run out gear; Brooks, in Dreadnought Gunner and the Battle of Jutland mentions the run-out gear causing turret malfunctions, on page 256. (see if the\is link works for you 1). I'm slowly trying to find sources that can corroborate what Massie has, and then just substitute the sources. I have already found discrepancies between Massie and other sources, so the point that he can be unreliable is well taken. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed something interesting; Staff's book, for which I've relied mostly for the timeline at Jutland, seems to be written in UTC +1, I'm assuming owing to the fact that he uses primarily German sources. The British sources of course use UTC. Do you think the article should stick with what its got, or change it to UTC? Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Go to http://icanhide.com then plug the address I listed above in, and theoretically your "limit" should disappear. Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland I have - one of the best books on Jutland by a mile (and pretty unimpeachable too unless you think Jon Tetsuro Sumida is God and love Beatty).

I think the German time would be best - after all, most people reading the article would assume that German ships would not unnaturally use German time. It's only on things like the Battle of Jutland when you're actively trying to reconcile the different times when trouble begins. Maybe put a note in italics at the top of the article or the section concerned? That's my two cents anyway. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 20:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That worked perfectly, I'll have to bookmark that site. Yes, Brooks' book is quite good, from the snippets I've been reading online. I'll have to pick up a copy. Keeping the German time makes sense, I'll put a small note at the start of the Jutland section denoting the differing time from the main article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

By George I think I've got it: on p188, in Tarrant's book, it states "But by 8:30, both midships turrets had been repaired, although breakdowns recurred later in the battle. The after turret was also made ready...The turret could, however, only be trained by hand." What is likely is that when Hipper made his report, both of the two amidships turrets had again failed, and the D turret was the only turret still in action, if even at a decreased capability. Parsecboy (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I already put in the bit about hand-working :p scant hours ago, but I got my details from a paraphrasing of the Der Krieg in der Nord See from the 1920s. I get the feeling Tarrant read the same article as I did! I'm somewhat perplexed at my not recalling p188 before!! --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 10:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed you snuck that in while I wasn't looking ;) I was about to add it, and happened to see it mentioned a few lines down, so I said to myself "well, who could've put that there?" so I checked through the history, and saw your name, damnit :p Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As some people are wont to say; lolololol. Back to business, while looking for information on German fire control (I'll add a bit on Von der Tann's when I have the chance) I came across a mention of the ship's gunnery officer. Since there's hardly reams of information available for the ship, and the gunnery of it was relatively exceptional, I think he warrants a mention when I can spare the time! --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. I just picked up a copy of "Große Kreuzer der Kaiserlichen Marine 1906-1918" (in German, of course, which I don't yet speak), which appears to have tons of information on the ship, and the rest of the German BCs. So, as I muddle through it with the aid of an online translator, I'll be able to add more to the article. It's got some pretty interesting alternate design proposals, including one that had three centerline twin turrets, and two staggered wing turrets that mounted one gun each. Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)