Talk:SMS Leipzig (1905)

SMS Leipzig (1905) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

SMS Leipzig (1905) is part of the Light cruisers of Germany series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 3, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
March 16, 2014	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Military history: Maritime / European / German / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwrecks

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

South America: Falklands Low‑importance

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Leipzig/GA1. 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.[1] "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Aye, me too. Passed. Sorry for the delay. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this one may be of use. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]