The centenary of the sinking of this famous commerce-raiding cruiser (9 November 1914) is rapidly approaching, and I'd like to have the article run on the main page that day - I have a short list of such articles, but this being the most famous (and chronologically first) ship in the group, I figured it ought to go first to FAC as well. I wrote this article in October last year, and it passed an A-class review at MILHIST a couple of weeks ago; it is also a part of the largest GT on Wikipedia (and the first in that series to come to FAC). Thanks to all who take the time to review the article, I look forward to working with you. Parsecboy (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
Jose: Given OCLC number appears to be for 10th edition, not ninth
I wonder if that's an error on Worldcat's end. It says the 10th edition, published in 1941, whereas the awm.gov.au page states that the 9th edition was published that year; highly unlikely they published two editions in the same year. This one is more likely the 10th edition.
Check order of Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Good catch. Thanks as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment As a bit of a drive by comment, I'm surprised to see that the article doesn't note the disposition of surviving elements of Emden. One of her guns is mounted on the corner of a major intersection in Sydney, another forms part of a display on her final battle in the Australian War Memorial (complete with a rather odd sound and light show in which it occasionally "fights" a preserved gun from HMAS Sydney!), and I imagine that the AWM and Royal Australian Navy Heritage Centre have additional bits of the ship in their collections. Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
That's a very good point. I've added info on the three guns that were recovered, along with the bell, stern ornament, and various artifacts in the AWM collection - the RANHC doesn't have as helpful a website, and I haven't managed to find anything there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added a much more plausible account of Emden's encounter with Glen Turret at Penang from Corbett.
Thanks for that.
Images appropriately licensed.
No DABs and no duplicate links.
Hyphenate 97 ton as a compound adjective.
Do we have any information on how many times Sydney hit Emden, or even ammunition expenditure?
Nothing I've seen - I'd wager no one bothered counting since she was pretty well swiss cheese by the time Sydney was done with her.
Is there any particular reason she was named Emden? Explaining that Emden is a town, at least, might be of interest to readers.
Starting with the Bremen-class cruisers, all German light cruisers were named after towns - at some point, I'll need to create a German counterpart for United States ship naming conventions, since the reasoning behind some of the choices are fairly interesting (for instance, in the late 1890s, Kaiser Bill mandated that capital ships be named after the German states - and especially the land-locked ones - to drum up support for the Navy in a traditionally Army-dominated society). In any event, I added mention of the connection to the lead.
When you say "Ostamerikanischen station," does that mean there was a substantial German naval presence in the Americas? If so, where were they based?
Yes, there was a reasonably substantial German presence in the Americas (for instance, a few cruisers and a couple of gunboats joined the British in the Venezuela Crisis of 1902–03. I don't know where they were based for sure though - typically the German squadrons operated out of European ports (usually British, since they were the best-developed) in an area where no German base was available (for instance, before the Kiaotschou concession was seized, German ships in Chinese waters usually operated out of British Hong Kong, and in German East Africa, cruisers frequently overhauled in Capetown or Bombay before the floating drydock arrived in Dar es Salaam).
A link and brief explanation of the Kiautschou Bay concession might help the reader understand why German ships were based out of Tsingtao.
Added a link to the lead and a short line in the body explaining the seizure of the concession.
Throughout, you use the phrase "decided to" a lot. Sometimes it's appropriate, but often the action that's really of interest is what the captain did, not what he decided to do.
Where did Ayesha come from?
She was just moored at Direction Island - no idea where or even when she was built, apart from that she was ancient and barely seaworthy.
That's all for now, I'll take a second run at it later. Very nice article! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Coemgenus. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment by Nigel Ish
According to "Narrative of the Proceedings of H.M.A.S. Sydney" in the Naval Review (magazine), 1915, Issue 2, pp. 448–459 , Sydney fired 670 rounds, claiming an estimated 100 hits.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much Nigel, I've added it to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Support, typical great work from Parsecboy. Have you asked Saberwyn to check this over? I believe he wrote the HMAS Sydney article. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 01:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
If Saberwyn is keen to look this over, I could leave it open another day or two, otherwise it seems about ready to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)