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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
The article states that the ship ran into a minefield. Then it notes that the crew kept it afloat. Though it can be inferred that the ship struck a mine, the article never actually says so. This prompts questions such as, how did it manage to survive when mines often sank much larger warships? Djmaschek (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
German warships were as a rule internally subdivided better than British ships and thus better able to survive underwater damage - HMS Audacious was sunk by a single German mine, while SMS Goeben hit at least three British mines and survived. That said, Halpern doesn't go into any detail about the mine hit, and I haven't found anything else on it either. I have clarified that she hit a mine though - I had thought about that when I wrote it initially. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every sentence in the first paragraph (after the first) starts with "she" can we get a bit of variety here?
"On 2 August..." in what year?
"She was mined, once, in January 1915, though the ship was again operational..." I am pretty sure this means she hit a mine, but many non-military folks aren't going to get that on the first read ... is there a way we can rephrase so folks aren't thinking the ship was tunneled into for ore?
Should all be fixed.
Service history:
"Augsburg and Lübeck were intended to lay a minefield near the entrance to the Gulf of Finland later that month..." the first part is awkward - can we rephrase somehow?
Have a look now and see if that's better.
First name for "Commodore von Karpf"? (I realize it may not be known..)
I haven't been able to track down his first name - he's referenced in SMS Regensburg, the GAN for which was just completed by User:MisterBee1966—he's usually a good source for this kind of thing (see for instance he had the first name for Commodore Heinrich also mentioned in that article), but he didn't say anything about Karpf's name. I'll ask him anyway, in case he overlooked it.
MisterBee came through - it's Johannes von Karpf. Parsecboy (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Karpf ordered the slower Albatross to seek refuge in neutral Swedish waters, while Augsburg and the torpedo boats used their high speed to escape the Russians. Albatross was badly damaged in the Battle of Åland Islands and ran aground in Swedish waters." The implication here is that this action was the Battel fo Aland Islands? Can we make this clearer? And also make it clearer that Augsburg escaped ... it's a bit confusing that you mention so much about Albatross here in the article about Augsburg - it might solve the confusion to just drop the bit about albatross here.
Reworded a bit - the loss of Albatross is the main result of the operation - I don't know that it'd be right to omit it.
"The Russian submarine Okun fired two torpedoes at Augsburg on the night of 28 June, though both missed.[11] The ship was assigned to the forces that took part in the..." "the ship" in the second sentence could be confusing as the subject of the previous sentence is the Okun, can we rephrase?
Fixed.
"The Russians had by this time withdrawn to Moon Sound, and the threat of Russian submarines and mines in the Gulf prompted the Germans to retreat." Okay, if the Russians withdrew - why did the Germans feel the need to retreat? Confusing.
The Russians left submarines and mines in the Gulf - I tweaked this so hopefully it's a little clearer.
"...she had been assigned to the VI Scouting Group along with her sister Kolberg and Strassburg." Odd phrasing - suggest "she had been assigned to the VI Scouting Group along with Strassburg and her sister Kolberg."
Fixed per your suggestion.
The usual 7 day hold, etc. etc. You know the drill. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there's no good source for the photo, just a link to a website that surely doesn't hold the copyright. Which means we can't use the image here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
b (citations to reliable sources): 
