Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of cruisers of Germany


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

List of cruisers of Germany

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

This list is the capstone for this project, which will be the largest Good Topic on Wikipedia at 121 articles. It represents the culmination of 5 years of work (I wrote SMS Fürst Bismarck in June 2009, probably the first article I did in this series). Thanks to all who review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * comment support I think the reader would profit if the lead would very briefly address a bit more of the historic context which spans from the Kaiserliche Marine in the German Empire, the downsizing following WW1, the resurrection in Reichsmarine of Weimar Republic, to the ultimate destruction in WW2 in the Kriegsmarine of the Third Reich. The current lead assumes that the reader is knowledgeable about these events. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A very good point - I've added a bit about the restrictions of Versailles and included the Reichsmarine and Kriegsmarine. Thanks very much. Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments.
 * So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about halfway, at List_of_cruisers_of_Germany. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "these heavy cruisers armed with 28 cm guns were intended to break Versailles by rendering the new treaty cruisers being built by Britain and France under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. ": ?
 * Funny how your brain shuts off halfway through a.
 * FWIW, I copyedited the article per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always, Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, gratz on finishing the topic. - Dank (push to talk) 14:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * New copyediting disclaimer: copyediting disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy)" why not simply "Imperial German Navy" as in the article linked?
 * I've chosen to use German words for proper nouns (as you'll see on the talk page, incidentally, I opposed moving the article from Kaiserliche Marine to Imperial German Navy in the first place). And that is a better construction than Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial German Navy) because, for one, Kaiserliche Marine is directly translated as Imperial Navy, the "German" is added for English speakers who can't be bothered to know more than one language. And for another, the average reader won't know that the Kaiserliche Marine was a German navy (despite the context clues of the list's title, sadly enough).
 * Being near fluent in both languages doesn't help much in that respect. Just more confusion. And to pop the German Question, which other Kaiserliche Marine would that be?
 * Footnote 1: the article limiting the displacement of new cruisers is 190, not 191 (that prohibited Germany from building submarines). Also there is no indication that it refers to long tons. In the French version it says tonnes and in the German translation Tonnen, while the English one uses simply "tons". I would go for metric tons, unless there is a source claiming otherwise.
 * Ah yes, probably a typo on the article number, good catch. You're probably right on metric tons.
 * In the last sentence of the lead section: Nürnberg was not scrapped in 1946, but served until 15 February 1961 (cf. Hildebrand, Röhr, Steinmetz,s.v.), when she was eventually broken up. (Also last sentence of Light cruisers)
 * Yes, must have been looking at something else when I wrote that. Thanks for catching it.
 * "only eight Gazelle and Bremen-class cruisers were permitted under the terms of the treaty": Article 181 says six light cruisers, but does not specify any class.
 * The Reichsmarine could have 6 light cruisers with a further two in reserve (same for the pre-dreadnoughts) - some of the restrictions ascribed to Versailles were actually put in place by the Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control, not the treaty itself.
 * I somehow knew that, it's just that the source did not mention it.
 * "These ships could be replaced after twenty years, ..." counting from the launching of the ship.
 * That's a good distinction to make, added.
 * ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, my pleasure. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * There's a reference to the post-war Emden in 1923, but the table says that she was laid down in 1921. Typo?
 * Yup, fixed.
 * Multiple links for diesel engines.
 * Removed
 * Suggest a bit covering Seydlitz's conversion into a carrier.
 * Added a line on this
 * some references have state or nation of publication, others do not. Pick one or the other, although I suggest spelling out the state names for our non-North American readers.
 * Suggest spelling out Germany instead of DE.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this lately and I think I prefer leaving it at just the city name since that's what's in the book and what you see in Worldcat. Thanks for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So long as you're consistent, although I'll point out that the books themselves usually provide state/province unless they're in world-class cities like London, New York, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * External links check out (no action req'd).
 * Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (not one of the ACR criteria, suggestion only).
 * Images are all PD and appear to have the req'd information (no action req'd).
 * Captions look fine (no action req'd).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (no action req'd).
 * No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
 * "...though she wasn't laid down until 1890..." - don't we generally avoid contractions per WP:CONTRACTION?
 * "... And Plan Z, approved in early 1939, projected a dozen P-class cruisers based on the Deutschland design..." Not sure about starting a sentence with 'and'. Perhaps reword? (suggestion only).
 * Otherwise I've read through the article and it looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.