Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cruisers of Germany/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 18:21, 15 September 2014.

List of cruisers of Germany

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This list covers all of the cruisers built by Germany, from the early 1880s to 1945, and spanning three navies. This list is the capstone for this monster Good Topic. This list is based heavily on the sub-lists it summarizes, and it was reviewed at MILHIST's A-class review process in May (see here). Thanks to all who take the time to review this list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

 Comments Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC) That's me done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * no dablinks✅
 * checklinks ok✅
 * alt text is needed for all images
 * reflinks ok✅
 * redir checker ok✅
 * no copyvios according to earwig✅
 * no overlinking✅
 * dashes are ok✅
 * while redlinks are obviously acceptable on a work in progress like WP, I have been chipped for them in FLs myself, and think there are a total of nine redlinked guns, as well as the "list of avisos" redlink. I'll leave it to the moderators to decide if that is too many redlinks for a list of this size, but I'd suggest creating the gun articles, even if they are stubs.
 * no citation for the propulsion for Mainz
 * Oops, good catch.
 * not clear why some terms are linked in some cells of tables, and others are not. The types of engines in the light cruisers section, for example. I suggest that these are terms people are familiar with, and don't need linking. But given they are not sortable tables, if you are going to link, just link the first mention in each table.
 * I doubt most readers know what a steam turbine is - I always link engine types on first use. There was some overlinking in some of the tables, but I've removed those now.
 * "were intended to break Versailles" needs rewording, "were intended to break the Versailles restrictions"? Perhaps a little more explanation?
 * See how it reads now.
 * I'm unsure of whether the tables meet accessibility requirements, but will also leave that for the moderators or reviewers with better knowledge of what that looks like.
 * I'd assume they're fine - I cribbed them from the already-FL sublists.
 * given the long reference list, I suggest you use the refbegin and refend templates to reduce text size
 * Fair enough
 * I don't think you need ISBN and OCLC for Conway's 1922-46, Gröner, Halpern, Staff or Tarrant, one book identifier is all that is needed.
 * Good point
 * Lenton German Warships of the Second World War (1975) pp. 65–66 mentions three "scout cruisers" Sp.1-3. Only one was laid down, and the other two cancelled, but I think they should be included for completeness? The rationale for their design is described in some detail on p. 29, they were originally planned as 1936A (Mob) destroyers Z.40–42.
 * They're really more like large destroyers -and Groener and Conway's include them with the destroyers, not the cruisers, so I followed their lead.
 * Lenton (p. 55) states Emden (the latter one) was scuttled Heikendorfer Bight 3 May 1945 after being bombed by RAF Kiel 14 April 1945
 * Lenton (p. 57) states Karlsruhe sunk 10 April 1940 (by HMS Truant), Köln bombed by USAAF Wilhemshaven 30 March 1945 and scrapped 1946, Königsberg bombed RN aircraft Bergen 10 January 1940, salved 1943, capsized 22 September 1944 and abandoned
 * Lenton (p. 58) states Leipzig scuttled southwest of Lister 20 July 1946
 * Lenton (p. 60) states Admiral Hipper scrapped 1946
 * Lenton (p. 64) states Prinz Eugen expended as target Kwajalein 15 November 1947, and Seydlitz scuttled incomplete Königsberg 10 April 1945, salved as Russian Poltava, construction abandoned 1950, also Lützow sold to Russians 1940, completion abandoned May 1941, bombed German aircraft Leningrad April 1942, floating battery Tallin 1942, Petropavlovsk 1944, construction abandoned 1950
 * I don't know what you want me to do with the several points above - this info (though from other sources) is present in all of the individual ship articles and in the relevant sublists, but it seems all too detailed to be in this one. And there are several errors: in the case of Karlsruhe, Lenton is wrong - it was the 9th, not the 10th, Koenigsberg was sunk on 10 April, not 10 January (and was raised in Jan. 1942, not 1943), etc.
 * Lenton (p. 65) states light cruisers "M", "N" and "O" were scrapped on slip 1941–43, last three cancelled.
 * According to Groener, O was never laid down and the other two were broken up in 1939 after the start of the war.
 * Lenton (pp. 381–384) lists 11 auxiliary cruisers, including the Kormoran that famously accounted for the HMAS Sydney (D48) in a battle of mutual destruction. They were Orion, Atlantis, Pinguin, Widder, Thor, Stier, Komet, Kormoran, Michel, Coronel, and Hansa. If they are not to be included in this list, it needs to be explained in the lead in terms of defining the scope.
 * Those are only the WWII raiders - they are nonetheless not proper cruisers, which is to say they're not purpose-built warships. I've added a note explaining that.
 * Thanks very much for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A pleasure, I am happy all my points have been covered/addressed except the alt text on the images. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, I overlooked that - I've added some, but don't really know what's helpful and what's not. Let me know if anything needs work. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, supporting now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraph comments
 * The first sentence has about twice as many words as it needs to be.
 * Why start these sorts of sentences with the dates? ""
 * Moved to the end of the sentence
 * "" Again, too wordy. "Most of the armored and light cruisers saw action in the major theaters of World War I ..."
 * Good suggestion
 * "" "to ... to", etc
 * See how it reads now.
 * You're using "most" and "many" a lot
 * Switched one of the "most"s to "the majority"
 * "twenty years of age" is stilted. Why not "after twenty years of service"?
 * Well, the 20-year timer started at the launching, not the commissioning, so counting years of service isn't accurate.
 * "" began and first are redundant
 * Removed the "first"
 * "Mid-1935s" ... really?
 * That's embarrassing :(
 * Are the naval name changes needed in the lead?
 * I figured it was worth noting
 * "" why "and"? Shouldn't you be using "but"? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. Thanks Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * development of ships suited to each task wouldn't "optimized" be better than "suited"?
 * Sounds fine to me
 * Link mine
 * Added
 * Add a bit about the FK design studies.
 * Added a line on them
 * after sustaining two nuclear detonations howabout "enduring" rather than "sustaining"? Otherwise nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thanks for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Crisco 1492 comments
 * Most of the armored and light cruisers saw action in all of the major theaters of World War I - so at least 51% of the cruisers saw action in 100% of the theaters (i.e. each ship never missed a theater), or ...?
 * See how it reads now.
 * only two survived the war intact. - what does "intact" add here? We could probably lose it
 * Sounds fine to me
 * Venezuela Crisis of 1902–1903, - article is at Venezuela crisis of 1902–1903. Which is the correct capitalization?
 * Apparently lower case, though I'll point out that the article was moved there just a couple of weeks ago.
 * Otherwise nothing to pick at. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Crisco. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * – SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.