Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of light 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 User:Hahc21 10:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC).

List of light cruisers of Germany

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Another in my series of German warship types, this comprises the light cruisers built from the 1890s to the 1940s. This is the capstone for this topic. It passed a MILHIST ACR last month. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * To what use did the Reichsmarine and Kriegsmarine put Hamburg and Berlin? Barracks ships or similar?
 * Explain Dresden's fate.
 * Link beach and grounded.
 * Images are appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All should be taken care of, thanks for the review. Parsecboy (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments 

On first glance I find nothing wrong with the list, although list is a bit of an understatement. However, I found some minor points that should be addressed: ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC) A good list. A few minor comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The first sentence - though accurate - seems unnecessarily complicated to me. Maybe we could drop the reference to the different historical periods as they are reflected in the names of the navies mentioned?
 * Sounds fine to me.
 * The second chapter is titled World War II-era, but covers mostly the inter-war period. Maybe it should be called Post-World War I-era or something alike.
 * Well, they all saw action during the war, which is primarily what they're notable for. The same could be said for the WWI-era section, since the vast majority were built before 1914. Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In the paragraph on Emden (1925) the phrase "by the reformed Reichsmarine" is used. As someone else pointed out, it should be re-formed, as it is rather questionable that the Reichsmarine saw the errors of its ways and repented.
 * Good catch.
 * In the paragraph on the Leipzig-class, Gotenhafen is mentioned. Maybe it could be extended by the present-day name, Gdynia, Poland. And a time reference would be in order.
 * Added the present-day name and the time period. Thanks for your review, ÄDA. Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "foreign stations" - I think this should be defined.
 * In the lead? There are too many places to list them in the lead, and simply adding something like "in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific oceans" seems vague to the point of uselessness. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "five members of the succeeding Königsberg and Leipzig classes" - presumably members means ships but it sounds a bit odd to me.
 * It's a pretty routine way to refer to the ships in a class.
 * "A further six ships of the M class were planned in the late 1930s, but the outbreak of war forced their cancellation." Why would war force their cancellation rather than making proceeding with them a higher priority? (I see this is explained below but I think a revised wording would be helpful).
 * Because once war breaks out, the most pressing needs get priority of construction (in this case, U-boats). Again, I think spelling this out is too much detail in the lead.
 * Brummer class. "And to further aid them in their offensive minelaying role, they were designed to resemble British cruisers." Why did resembling British cruisers help them - for disguise?
 * Yes - if you spot a ship in the foggy, squally North Sea that looks like a British ship, you won't open fire immediately, which gives the German ships a bit longer to escape. Added "to help conceal their identity." - does that clear it up any? Thanks for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Support typically excellent work. Would only have one wish, that the tables were all formatted the same, but it may be a screen width issue that shrinks the Karlsruhe section and Cöln section compared to the others. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TRM. I've checked the tables on my desktop, laptop and smart phone and they all looked fine on those screens, but I guess that wasn't enough ;) I added clear templates after the images so that should keep them from pushing the tables over. Parsecboy (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I see the article is written in AmEng, but is it normal to have a non-US date format used as well? - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Germany uses day-month-year format so that's what I went with. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lovely - learn something new every day! Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.  Please leave the  template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.