Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

I wrote the original version of this article almost ten years ago - in the time since then, some new sources have been published that have allowed me to expand it significantly to its current state. This covers the last serious battlecruiser design of the Imperial German Navy (and briefly discusses the paper "grosskampfschiff" studies from 1918) - they were never built, but they provided the basis for the Scharnhorst-class battleships built by Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article in preparation for a run at FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
Hello there, see some little issues here and there.


 * In the article's body (especially in the "Development" and "Design" sections) uses short and long tons however the rest of the article uses only long tons.
 * All standardized


 * There are some noughts I don't think they're necessary like.
 * They were 227.80 m (747 ft 5 in) long at the waterline, the "0" isn't necessary.
 * Good point
 * at 30.40 m (99 ft 9 in), same as above "0" isn't necessary.
 * Fixed
 * and the same maximum draft of 9.30 m (30 ft 6 in). same as above "0" isn't necessary.
 * Fixed
 * each of which drove a 3-bladed screw that was 4.20 m (13 ft 9 in) in diameter. same as above "0" isn't necessary.
 * Fixed
 * thick and the roof was covered with 50 mm (2.0 in) of armor plate. same as above "0" isn't necessary.
 * Fixed


 * The crew of the ship was to consist of 47&nbps;officers and 1,180 sailors. Ehm isn't there something wrong, especially the "&nbps;" part?
 * Fixed


 * See some British English words.
 * The ships were planned to displace 33,500 megatonnes (3.30×1010 long tons) at standard weight, British megatonnes.
 * Fixed
 * The shell allotment was divided between armour piercing and high explosive versions, British armour.
 * Fixed
 * the armour-piercing shells could penetrate up to 336 mm (13.2 in) of steel plate. Again British armour.
 * Fixed


 * Note one should have a citation.
 * Done.

More comments
 * This was approximately 2,500 t (2,500 long tons) heavier than the Mackensens. There is already a 2,500 long tons above this one.
 * Removed that line altogether, as it's redundant
 * Already in 1918, the design staff revived the grosskampfschiff concept with a series of design studies that ranged from smaller counterparts to the British Courageous class of "large light cruisers" of the GK3021 and GK3022 types to very large, 45,000-metric-ton (44,000-long-ton) battlecruisers armed with 42 cm (17 in) guns. This is a really long sentence I think this should be split or am I wrong?
 * Hmm, I'm not really sure of a good way to split it
 * What about this? in 1918, the design staff revived the grosskampfschiff concept with a series of design studies that ranged from smaller counterparts to the British Courageous class. From "large light cruisers" of the GK3021 and GK3022 types to very large, 45,000-metric-ton (44,000-long-ton) battlecruisers armed with 42 cm (16.5 in) guns. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope this was useful. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The 15 cm guns had 150 mm (5.9 in) worth of armor plating in the casemates; Switch the "(5.9 in)" to the 15 cm because 150 mm is equal to 15 cm.
 * Good point
 * The power plant was rated 90,000 shaft horsepower (67,000 kW) No metric horsepower? Same in the infobox.
 * Added an output for PS in addition to kW
 * battlecruisers armed with 42 cm (17 in) guns. this is a little bit odd to me. Why? Because you use "(17 in)" twice one in the sentence the but preferably 40 cm or even 43 cm (17 in) guns. and the other one in the first sentence. The odd part is that you use them in two different numbers (43 and 42).
 * Fixed - the conversion templates are a little fiddly
 * Is there an English word for "Schnelladekanone" in the first note?
 * Good catch, added a translation
 * Thanks, it was. Parsecboy (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Round two has begun. ;p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take all the comments I can get ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great it looks a lot of better than before. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

 * No DABs, no external links.
 * One duplink
 * Fixed
 * In the infobox, link steam turbines, boilers, turret, main belt, secondary battery and nautical miles. Abbreviate shp.
 * Done
 * Link Parsons, Schulz-Thornycroft boiler if possible, diesel generators, torpedo boat, conning tower
 * Done - conning tower is already linked earlier
 * Tell the reader that two of the main gun turrets were superfiring with a link
 * Good catch
 * Turbine engines?
 * Switched to steam turbines
 * alongside each other abreast?
 * How about "side by side"?
 * Fix the 300 mm conversion in the armor section
 * Done
 * Are the diesels installed in the Uboats the generators from Ersatz Gneisenau?
 * Good catch
 * I presume that the infrastructure limitations referenced by Dodson were drydock and canal sizes? If so, be a bit more specific.
 * Good idea
 * Be sure to put your cites in numerical order.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D
This article is in very good shape, but I think some aspects of the early sections could be further clarified:
 * "ordered for the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy)" ... " led to the German Navy re-designing the ships" - given that you've gone to a fair bit of trouble to explain the name of the navy in the first sentence, it seems a bit sub-optimal to then use a different, and more generic, name in the next sentence. I'd suggest changing this to just 'led to the navy re-designing...' given that the navy in question should be clear.
 * Good point
 * "Nevertheless, the design provided the basis for the Scharnhorst-class battleships built in the 1930s." - this seems stronger than the article's final sentence, which says that the design formed only the "starting point" for the Scharnhorst class.
 * See if how I reworded it works for you
 * The first para of the 'Development' section is a bit unclear: did these three battlecruisers form part of the construction program set in 1912, or where they ordered in addition to it to replace sunk ships? Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, in accordance with the laws - by 1915, the navy decided to use the slots that had been prescribed for battleships to replace the lost armored cruisers - have clarified this in the text. Thanks Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Those changes all look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Source review all the sources used are of high quality and reliable, what you would expect for a German ship class of this vintage. GTG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)