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


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

List of light cruisers of Germany

 * Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another in the list of warships series, this one covers all of the light cruisers built or projected by the German navies. It also caps this project which is almost complete (SMS Emden (1908) is the only remaining article that needs to be rewritten). Thanks to all who take the time to review this list. Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. "The two cruisers ordered in the 1905–1906 represented" needs something. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh, yes, there's a "program" missing there. Thanks for catching it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * Some sources have Köningsberg (1927) as the K-Class,
 * Added a note on this.
 * Section-wise I think it would be helpful to organize the list with a pre-WWI section and post-WWI section since its otherwise a long list. I thought maybe with CLs they would have a name for newer cruisers like other ships but I couldn't find any. Kirk (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I read 'modern light cruiser' a couple of times, which I don't recommend!
 * Hmm, the only problem with splitting it at WWI/WWII ships is it doesn't do much to break up the list, since only the last 4 entries will be split. I'll add it anyway and see what you think.
 * Similarly, Leipzig and Nuremberg are unique ships in Conway. Kirk (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And a note on this as well. Thanks for your review, Kirk. Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments: looks quite good to me, but I'm out of my depth with lists, so I only had a quick look, sorry. I have the following observations/suggestions:
 * the duplicate link checker tool identifies the following as possibly being overlinked: Battle of Heligoland Bight (1914); Battlecruiser; World War II; Reichsmarine;
 * All fixed, thanks for catching these.
 * wording: "All four ships were employed with the High Seas Fleet after their commissionings..." --> "All four ships were employed with the High Seas Fleet after they were commissioned..."?
 * Sounds fine to me.
 * in the References, there is some inconsistency in terms of location presentation. For instance compare "London" with "London, UK"; "New York, NY" with "New York"; "Annapolis, MD" and "Annapolis";
 * Should all be cleaned up.
 * in the References, can a location be added for the Osborne book?
 * Added.
 * in the References, is there an ISSN or OCLC number that could be added for the Forstmeier, Novik and Whitley works? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can get OCLC numbers for Warship International but nothing on the specific volumes for Novik and Whitley. Forstmeier has its only OCLC entry though. Thanks for your review, AR.

 Comments Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Initial run through: *will go through prose tomorrow or the next day. That's it for me. Great work putting this together! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * overlinking of Battle of Heligoland Bight (1914), Battlecruiser (Goeben), World War II, Reichsmarine (under Emden).
 * All fixed (see above)
 * location field for Novik, Whitley, Osborne
 * Also see above.
 * consistency re: location fields (London, UK or just London, for example)
 * And again.
 * some citations need to be combined (Gardiner & Gray, p. 143; and Herwig, p. 28 for example)
 * Both fixed.
 * suggest you use refbegin and refend templates to reduce the font size in References
 * Ok
 * Is there a Commons link that should be added?
 * Not really - there's World War I cruisers of Germany (and a WWII equivalent) but they include all types, not just the light cruisers.
 * consider adding alt text to all images for accessibility reasons (not an ACR requirement)
 * no issues detected by dab checker, EL checker, redir checker or earwig (no action required)
 * Byron Farwell and James P. Delgado in refs should be authorlinked.
 * Both added.
 * Suggest the individual citations in many of the tables could be replaced with a single citation against the column heading.
 * In the Kolberg class table, 10.5 cm/45 should probably be rendered as 10.5 cm SK L/45 for consistency, ditto 15 cm SK L/45. Also, I suggest you use a consistent way of referring to each gun, in the latter tables, you reduce it to "15 cm guns", then use "15 cm C/25" omitting the SK. Suggest you use the full version throughout with all guns.
 * Should all be standardized now.
 * It is not clear why you use a conversion for the guns in the Pillau class table, but not elsewhere. I suggest the approach should be consistent.
 * Generally, you only need to use a conversion at the first use, so it's in the Pillau class since they were the first to use the larger gun.
 * No power conversion in the Graudenz class table.
 * Same as above.
 * No speed conversion in the Pillau class table.
 * Ditto.
 * Regensburg was present for the battle, however, where she led the torpedo boat flotillas screening the I Scouting Group battlecruisers
 * Done.
 * Armor thickness conversion in some tables, but not others.
 * Same as above.

Support
 * Great work. Two minor points below:
 * "several intermediate designs of unprotected cruisers, such as the Bussard class, and avisos like SMS Hela" - it's wikilinked, but is there anyway of explaining what an aviso is in the lead? (e.g. "...and aviso despatch boats like SMS Hela"?) Would be gentler on the non-specialist. :)
 * See what I added and let me know what you think.
 * she was ultimately surrendered to the United States and expended as a target in 1921" - the phrase "expended as a target" wasn't one I was familiar with, and it felt a bit odd (I might have expected to expend ammunition or money, but not a ship). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's used fairly commonly with ships (see for instance here,, and here). Would you prefer something different (say, "sunk as a target")? Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.