Talk:Black Sea raid

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black Sea Raid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 04:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I've always wanted to learn more about this operation, so am pleased to review this article. I'll post comments later this weekend. Nick-D (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• "was an Ottoman naval sortie against Russian ports" - the key German role should be acknowledged upfront, as the main warships involved were really only nominally Ottoman
• The first and third paras in the Background section need references, and some other parts of the article aren't referenced at present
• The first para of the background section also covers too much ground too briefly, and should be expanded (eg, when did Germany and Turkey establish an alliance, and what were the German ships doing in the area)
• "and that he planned on securing the support of Djemal Pasha" - the support for what?
• " who, along with his ship, had been transferred to the Ottoman Navy" - this should be covered in more detail
• Did Souchon seek to inflict any significant damage on the Russian ports, or did he only want to start a war and get out of the area?
• "Souchon radioed Istanbul" - presumably he radioed a headquarters located in the city, and not the city itself
• "British forces in the Mediterranean finally responded" - "finally" seems out of place: did they deliberately delay acting on their orders, or were they unprepared for them? A 24 hour period between receiving orders to go to war and getting forces into position would be considered pretty good by most modern naval forces.
• "On 3 November British warships bombarded outer forts in the Dardanelles. Two days later they extended their declaration of war " - this wording is a bit unclear: the fleet didn't declare war, the British Government did.
• It's a bit odd for British PM Lloyd George to be referred to as merely a "critic"
• Please provide page numbers for the Kieser, Halpern and Kent references
• Please give specific page references for Fromkin - it's referenced too many times for a five page range to be suitable
• Please provide bibliographic details for the Tucker reference
• What makes http://www.gwpda.org/naval/turkmill.htm a reliable source?
• There's a bit of over-linking Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Response

Hi Nick-D. Thank you for the thorough and helpful review. Unfortunately, I'm heading out of town for a week myself, so my ability to revise the article as you've suggested is, for the time being, limited. Since I'm leaving today, I must be brief in my response. I'll go over what I can:

• "was an Ottoman naval sortie against Russian ports" - the key German role should be acknowledged upfront, as the main warships involved were really only nominally Ottoman

I've put in the first sentence that it was "supported by Germany". I did say already in the first paragraph that the attack was orchestrated by the German Admiral Wilhelm Souchon and the German Foreign Ministry (in addition to Enver Pasha). If you have a more direct suggestion on how to word this than I will gladly listen.

Looks good Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• "and that he planned on securing the support of Djemal Pasha" - the support for what?

It was through Djemal Pasha, the Minister of the Navy, that Enver Pasha was able to influence the fleet. His cooperation was necessary so Enver and Souchon could order the raid. (If necessary, I can add sourced info to the article that discusses how Djemal facilitated Enver's work).

Please do: this sentence isn't clear at present Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I've added a bit more information on Djemal's role. There isn't really much to go off of, but he did stop actively opposing Souchon's actions (like he did previously), and it was both he and Enver that gave Souchon attack orders.

• Did Souchon seek to inflict any significant damage on the Russian ports, or did he only want to start a war and get out of the area?

No sources have really made this clear to me, but based off of the quotes of his I've seen, I would assume the latter.

• "Souchon radioed Istanbul" - presumably he radioed a headquarters located in the city, and not the city itself

I would agree, but no source directly states that. It's also possible he sent a message directly addressed for Djemal, Enver, or even the Porte. To be completely transparent, I believe the source where I found this info said verbatim that he "sent a message to Istanbul" while still far out at sea. So I'm assuming that he used a wireless telegraph.

Lots of style guides recommend against referring to localities where specific institutions are meant. How about changing this to "Souchon dispatched a radio signal...". The context for this clear from the remainder of the sentence. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The only sources I've found that talk about this just say that he "radioed/sent wire" to "Istanbul/Constantinople." Nothing so far has given me a clear indication on where exactly this message ended up.

• "British forces in the Mediterranean finally responded" - "finally" seems out of place: did they deliberately delay acting on their orders, or were they unprepared for them? A 24 hour period between receiving orders to go to war and getting forces into position would be considered pretty good by most modern naval forces.

I reworded this. Replaced "finally responded to" with "carried out".

• "On 3 November British warships bombarded outer forts in the Dardanelles. Two days later they extended their declaration of war " - this wording is a bit unclear: the fleet didn't declare war, the British Government did.

I reworded this as well. Replaced "they" with "Britain".

• It's a bit odd for British PM Lloyd George to be referred to as merely a "critic"

Agreed, I'll set about rewording this

This still isn't clear: how can Churchill's boss have merely been a "critic" of him? Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I've revised this. It now reads, more true to the source: "Due to these attacks, there was a common impression in Britain that Churchill had brought the Ottomans into the war. Prime Minister Lloyd George held this belief for several years to come."

• What makes http://www.gwpda.org/naval/turkmill.htm a reliable source?

This was written by Geoffrey Miller, author of The Millstone: British Naval Policy in the Mediterranean, 1900-1914, the Commitment to France and British Intervention in the War, the last of a three part series. Seeing as his book was published by the University of Hull, I think it's safe to say he is a trusted source. The Great War Primary Document Archive, the publisher of the article, is a non-profit organization that focuses on preserving and sharing info about WWI. It claims to be a resource for "scholars and students". While it's not as ideal as, say, Cambridge University Press, it does appear to get its facts straight. The only thing here is that his article might have not gone through an editorial process on the website. That would be my main concern.

OK Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• There's a bit of over-linking

I've fixed some of this, when I have more time I can do more cleanup

Concerning the background, I agree and I will get around to expanding this stuff. The Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau should be elaborated upon, as well as things like Ottoman–German alliance, popular Ottoman opinion of the Entente and Central Powers, the British seizure of Ottoman battleships, foreign military assistance to the Empire, etc. I might make a "Prelude" for all the stuff in October, and put the rest in the "Background" section.

As for the references, I intend on switching styles, so there will be a full list of "References" and a "Citations" section with shorthand versions (author's name and page). I think that will make things more clear.

Yes, that will help Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I've now added background on the Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau and the Ottoman–German alliance. That is, as much as I see that helps this page and doesn't distract from its focus.

• Please provide page numbers for the Kieser, Halpern and Kent references

This could prove to be difficult, as these books don't have page numbers.

Indy beetle (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC) @Indy beetle: Sorry for the ridiculously slow time it's taken me to revisit this article, but it looks like some of my comments remain unaddressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nick-D: My own apologies as well for not dealing with this sooner. I've gone back and added what I could. Let me know if there's anything else that can be done. --Indy beetle (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Those changes look good, but there's still some unreferenced material. Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I just sourced the declarations of war. Can you be more specific as to what needs sourcing? I don't want to overcite. --Indy beetle (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Look for paragraphs which don't end with a reference (eg, "Ambassador Wagenheim signed the treaty the next day, creating the secret Ottoman–German alliance", "Three destroyers were detailed for Odessa. On the way, one of these destroyers experienced engine trouble and was forced to turn back", and two or three others). Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I've gotten everything. Fair to let you know that in some cases I simply moved the cite to the end of the paragraph. This was when that one citation covered everything in the paragraph, so I felt no need to put two of the same citations in adjacent sentences. --Indy beetle (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

That works for me - I'm pleased to now pass the article. Nice work with this article, and I'd encourage you to nominate it for a Military History Wikiproject A-Class review down the track. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent Footnoting

Several footnotes lack page numbers, making the footnoting inconsistent.--Catlemur (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved -Indy beetle (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Black Sea Raid → Black Sea raid – No consistent capitalization in reliable sources, per MOS:CAPS (t · c) buidhe 07:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Google Scholar results show mixed capitalization, relevant entries on Google Books are mostly lowercase. (t · c) buidhe 07:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support: per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS - the evidence does not support capitalisation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support Sourcing on this is indeed mixed, which is not enough to merit full caps. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• I support lower case "raid", but I wonder if the title is clear. A more descriptive title might be better. Srnec (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"Balck Sea Raid/raid" is definitely what the sources like to call it Google Books returns. I think a descriptive title wouldn't be an improvement. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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.