# Talk:SMS S36 (1914)

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS S36/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 01:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is a bit thin, but I know from experience how hard it can be to find details on the service of WWI torpedo boats.

I agree on both points. I have been sitting on this for a while and not finding any additional information. I decided to nominate on the basis that the worse that could happen was that it got a quick fail and I learnt something about where the GA boundary is. (I have been exploring this with a more experienced (than me) and helpful editor - see here).
I have a few comments:

Just go with one para for the lead.
Done.
suggest adding details of main armament and TTs to lead after the first sentence
Done.
in the lead "to the end of the she" is missing "war" I think
Grr. Done.
link ceremonial ship launching, ship commissioning in lead and body, and scuttling in lead
Done. (I tend to overdo WP:OVERLINK - a bad habit picked up at GOCE.)
link Imperial German Navy
Done.
I don't think FY needs linking, generally these things are done by FY, you could get away with just 1913
Done.
suggest "The "S" in S36 refers to the shipbuilder, Schichau-Werke."
Done.
in the infobox, suggest adding o/a after the length provided
Done.
no mention of how many shafts in the body, but two listed in the infobox
Done.
where were the guns positioned?
From pictures it seems clear (to me) that one forward and two amidships was standard. But I absolutely cannot find a source which explicitly states this!
link aft
Done.
No more detail on engagements during the Battle of Riga? This seems to be a gap in coverage.
Quite right. Now has an outline of the action and some circumstantial detail. Update. There seems to be some debate with Nigel Ish, so it is not finalised until we sort it out. The article currently includes his preferred version.
Combine the two Jutland paras and rename the section "Riga and Jutland"
Done.
link destroyer and battlecruiser
Done
what was the name of the division the German battlecruisers were in at Jutland?
Here I am referring to the Scouting Force, of which the 9th Flotilla were a part
Done
same for the British battlecruisers at Jutland
Here I am referring to Hood's 3rd Battlecruiser Squadron.
4 should be four per MOS:NUMERAL
Done.
perhaps clarify that the torpedo fired at the destroyer missed?
Done.
"to the west"
Done.
17th Half Flotilla
Done.
identifyidentity
Done
suggest "German Flotillaships"
Done
for the "cutting through" image, suggest using the same licensing set-up as File:Austro-Hungarian torpedo boat 81T NH 87683.tif
Done. I would be grateful if you could check this, as copyright and image licensing are complete mysteries to me.
for the SMS S 56 image, the licensing isn't ok. This appears to be a lift from a Russian book published in 2000. [1] It must have a US tag to be on Commons as that is where the servers are, and I just can't see that happening if the image was first published in 2000. We need more information about where it was first published (if before 2000) to use the PD-old tag, The EU license isn't relevant to Russia, PD-old needs an author and their year of death. I don't think this one can be used, unfortunately. Have you searched the NH images? Just wondering which boats were similar in terms of class? Perhaps [2] or [3]?
Replaced with one which to my inexperienced eye seems to have adequate licensing.
That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 02:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Just placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Comments

There is a statement in the lead that S36 sunk a merchant ship in the Dover Straits raid - the body of the article and the sources don't support that - they say that The Queen was sunk by ships of the 17th Half Flotilla (which included S36). They don't specify which ship in particular was responsible.
Done.
Volume Two of Der Krieg in der Ostsee is actually dated 1929 according to the book itself - see [4] and appears to be credited to Heinrich Rollmann - the Metadata given by the Internet Achive appears to refer to Volume 1. (Incidentally with a date of 1929, the book may still be in copyright). There may be more details of S36's participation in the Battle of Riga for those with better German than me and who can cope with the ridiculous and undecipherable Gothic font used.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
There is mention of the Half-flotilla and even a brief mention of S36 in Der Krieg in der Ostsee. So far as I could tell, the mention of S36 was merely a change of captain. (Although I could well be wrong.) The font and the antiquated language defeated my very poor German. If it is important I could send it out for a translation.
Parsecboy, do you have access to a source that might cover the involvement of this torpedo boat in the Battle of Riga? Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 02:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

No, unfortunately - the battle was a relatively minor one and is overlooked as a result, compared to the repeat attack in Operation Albion in 1917 (for which I have two books!). The best I could do is add a bit of context for the operation, but no details on S36 (or even the 17th Halbflotille). Parsecboy (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67 and Parsecboy: That makes me feel a bit better about not being able to find anything myself. I was going to have a serious dig for something over the weekend, and if that failed, copy in some context from Battle of the Gulf of Riga, which would probably be Parsecboy's words as he seems to have been the major contributor. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I suggest just briefly explaining what the battle was about and that it didn't achieve its objectives, otherwise it just begs the question. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Done. I did manage to find a little on another member of the half flotilla which was sunk and have included it.
That's everything addressed, if not always satisfactorily. Bar the British divisional details. My head is spinning (that Gothic script) so I will leave it for a couple of days and come back to it. Update, most of it. To be continued. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. I made a couple of minor tweaks, nothing too drastic. Feel free to revert. Having looked at the mark-up, I thought I'd mention to you that if you are using sfn tags and ref=harv, you can dispense with the <ref></ref> tags, and repeat citations of the same page(s) just gather together automatically without having to define them. See Yugoslav torpedo boat T1 for the mark-up if you are interested.
This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 02:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: We have just had an edit conflict. possibly not the first. I will reinstall your changes and then discuss them below. Gog the Mild (talk)

Hi Nigel Ish Regarding your last revert. Probably best if we look at this one aspect at a time if that is ok with you.
I am looking at Halpern. He states that S31 was sunk by a mine, west of Ruhnu, on the night of 19/20 August. Any problem with that being added to the article?
He states that "The Admiralstab did not agree [that "the operations were nevertheless a success"], and the forces from the High Seas fleet were sent back to the North Sea". Any issues with that being included? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The trouble with giving fuller details of S31's loss is that it doesn't necessarily relate closely to S36, other than that were members of the same half-flotilla - while we know that S35 and V184 were present at S31s loss from Rollmann, we can't be certain that S36 was. It probably is reasonable to say that the high seas fleets units were withdrawn after the failure of the battle.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
He writes that the Germans sank only "a pair of small gunboats and a few merchantmen". So can I write in the article that 'The attempt failed to destroy any major Russian warships'?
Halpern: "The Germans had not achieved all of their operational goals, such as... laying the minefield off Moon Sound". So am I ok to mention that 'The attempt failed... to lay the planned minefield'?
Nearly an edit conflict. It is well past my bedtime, so I will get back to you tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
A quick last comment. We are clearly inputting simultaneously here, so bear with me. Hopefully we will be able to establish that fabled Wikipedia consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the (very) prompt response. True, we don't actually know that S36 was involved in any way in the loss of S31. But I wasn't trying to suggest that. It seems to me that a reader would be interested to read that one of the other ships in her half flotilla was sunk, and a bit of detail. Rather than lumping the loss in with all of the German losses.
Your last sentence seems to cover my points timed 3 minutes later. Yes? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)