Talk:Bremen-class cruiser

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bremen class cruiser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 13:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• "All seven ships were good sea boats..." -- this sort of sounds like an opinion. Who is making this assertion?
  • All it means is they had good seakeeping - sort of like saying an airplane is fast in a dive or
• It's not explained why Lübeck was outfitted with such different machinery in that section.
  • It's mentioned earlier in the design section.
• The draft and displacement numbers in the prose differ from those in the infobox.
  • The infobox gives the figures for Bremen - including all seven displacements and drafts would make it far too cluttered.
• "he ships' guns were protected by 50 mm thick shields." -- You note these shields in the prose but none of the images seem to show a good depiction of what they are. Maybe a link is needed, or an image?
  • If you look at the photo of Bremen in the US at full resolution, you can see the gun shields on the stern pair of guns.
• All of the dates in "Construction" will need to be cited, as they appear nowhere else in the article.
  • They're covered by the citation in the sentence for that section.
• "Hamburg was sunk by British bombers in 1944,[18] and later broken up for scrap in 1948–1949." -- I assume she was raised first?
  • Good point, added.
• "Berlin survived World War II and was loaded with chemical weapons and scuttled in the Skaggerak after the war.[7]" -- You note in the lead that this was to dispose of the weapons but it isn't clarified here.
  • Added.
• I've never asked for this on ship-class articles, but what subsequent classes of cruiser followed this one, and what kind of improvements were made on them? It would go a great length towards establishing continuity in German ship design.
  • Added a couple of lines on this.
• Dab links tool is returning one redirect. Please fix.
  • Done.
• Dup links tool indicates no issues with repeated links. Check links tool shows no problems with external links.

I am placing the article on hold pending the above improvements. —Ed!^(talk) 13:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Great work, I think all of my questions have been answered then. Passing the GA now. —Ed!^(talk) 14:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)