Talk:SMS Nürnberg (1916)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dolphin51 (talk · contribs) 10:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead
It says the ship was named after the previous light cruiser. I doubt this. I suggest it should say the ship was named after the city in Bavaria and was the second German ship to carry this name.

The second para says N. saw limited service during the war. It should clarify what war is intended, either by blue-linking or extra detail.

We now know that the planned operation that led to the Wilhelmshaven mutiny would have taken place in the closing days of the war because we know the day on which the Armistice was eventually signed, but this was not known at the time. It could say N. was assigned to the operation by the HSF that was planned to take place in October 1918.

N. was sunk as a gunnery target in 1922. This is separate from the events of June 1919. I suggest it should be given its own sentence. Dolphin ( t ) 02:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships says "the four units of this class were given the names of the commerce raiding cruisers sunk in the early part of the war."
 * I accept that the source says the four ships were given the names of four other ships previously sunk but that is not the same as saying any of these four new ships was named after a ship.
 * Wikipedia says the German cruiser Nürnberg was named after the city of Nuremberg. That was in 1933.  It wasn’t named after the SMS Nürnberg (1916).  (Wikipedia also says the SMS Nürnberg (1906) was named after the Bavarian city of Nuremberg.)  Dolphin  ( t )


 * World War I is linked in the first para - this shouldn't need to be repeated.
 * I agree. Dolphin  ( t )


 * Hipper and Scheer both knew the war was lost and would be over soon. Their primary goal was to do significant damage to the Grand Fleet to put Germany in a better position at the coming peace talks. Parsecboy (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You know that, and now I know that, but we can't assume the readers will have that background knowledge. If it is essential to use the expression in the closing days of the war it is necessary to explain the background.  At present, it just looks like an anachronism. I suggest you omit the apparent anachronism from the lead and put the appropriate level of detail later in the article.  (They didn't know the war was lost and would soon be over because no-one can have knowledge about something that hasn't happened.  Perhaps they believed the war was lost and would soon be over. ;))   Dolphin  ( t ) 02:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Construction
N. was armed with eight guns. The second para says Two were placed side by side forward on the forecastle, four were located amidships, two on either side, and two were arranged in a super firing pair aft. At first reading, these add up to ten guns. It was only at a subsequent reading that it became clear two on either side was refering to the four that were located amidships. I suggest the expression two on either side should be given different punctuation such as brackets. Dolphin ( t ) 02:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarified. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Operation Albion
The Admiralstab is not blue linked at its first appearance, although it is so linked in the final sentence of the second para. Sworbe Peninsula is blue linked twice in this section. (I don’t have a problem with that, but it is probably your practice to avoid overlinking.)

Reuter could not locate the vessels. Who, or what, was Reuter? Dolphin ( t ) 07:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Both fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Heligoland Bight
This section begins On 17 May, ... It should include also the year.
 * There's no "!7 May" - I assume you're talking about "17 November", in which case it does not need a year; you only need a year if it has changed since the last time a year was used. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The section ends ;after realizing the British had fled, the German forces returned to port. This should be a new sentence. Dolphin ( t ) 12:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Semi-colons are perfectly fine. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Fate
The second para says Most of the High Seas Fleet’s ships I suggest this be refined to either:
 * Most of the High Seas Fleet
 * Most of the ships of the High Seas Fleet

It says Karlsruhe was among the ships interned. Presumably this should be Nurnberg?

Some key information is missing from the second para, being left to the reader to infer. It says Reuter transmitted the order to his ships, and the next comment is about British sailors using explosive charges on N.’s anchor chains. There should be at least a comment confirming that the officers on N. attempted to scuttle her, apparently with some success. N. was re-floated in July so presumably she was dragged aground on 21 June. There should be at least a comment confirming that the British were successful in dragging her aground and preventing her from sinking in deeper water.

A link to Scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow would be good; possibly as a "Main" hatnote. Dolphin ( t ) 12:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Images and disambiguation pages
Two images checked. Both adequately licenced.

No disambiguation pages identified. Dolphin ( t ) 10:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)