Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

List of armored cruisers of Germany edit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk), The Bushranger One ping only


The list for another warship topic, this one on the handful of armored cruisers built in Germany at the turn of the century. Every other article in the topic is GA or higher, so once this makes it through this ACR and an eventual FLC, the topic will be ready for a WP:GT. I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring the list meets our A-class criteria and the Featured List criteria as well. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of work on the article, getting the format arranged and working on my favourite AC, Fürst Bismarck, so I'm co-nominating. Also, nice work Parsec. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Given how important the armor is, it would be useful to add a column giving the maximum thickness. Otherwise good job.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think linking Armored cruiser would help understand what the difference between protected cruiser and armored is. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "SMS Fürst Bismarck" you mention that the ship was named after Otto von Bismarck. You don't name the patron in the sections "SMS Prinz Heinrich", "Prinz Adalbert class", "Roon class" or "SMS Blücher" but again in the section "Scharnhorst class" they are mentioned. Is this intentional? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, probably just a result of basing the entries on the lead sections of the class articles. Would you prefer I remove the namesakes or add the rest? I don't think I included namesakes in the lists of battleships and battlecruisers. Parsecboy (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per standard disclaimer. You may want to include the "Sir" in "Vice Admiral Sir David Beatty." Please be careful about hyphens when you use the ship templates. - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Structure, coverage, referencing, and supporting materials seem fine -- well done.
  • Prose-wise, just a couple of suggestions:
    • "slight incremental improvements" -- would've thought "slight" is a bit redundant here.
    • I realise the sections are kinda stand-alone but you could afford to reduce the repeated links, especially very obvious ones like World War I.
    • No need for four words where two will do -- how about simply "her entire peacetime career" instead of "the entirety of her peacetime career"?
    • Check your p's and pp's, e.g. "Tarrant, p. 36–42" Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport - changed from Comments Good work so far, but nonetheless, some true naval geek comments. The first 2 are important for A-class in my opinion, the others are more optional (though to me they'd make the difference between a good list and a great one worthy of a place on Featured Lists).

  • Displacement: What is the "full combat load"? Is this a term used in Groner - if so how is it defined in terms of the fuel, ammunition, crew supplies, feedwater etc? I am unfamiliar with the details of how the Germans did things, but the British in this period typically quoted a "design displacement". Displacement is rarely standardised until 1922 and it is important not to give a misleading impression of precision.
    • Gröner states that the maximum displacement "equals type displacement plus full load fuel oil, diesel oil, coal, reserve boiler feed water, aircraft fuel, and special equipment." More broadly, he states "Displacement includes outer plating and external fittings, bilge keels, rudders, propellers, shaft brackets, shaft fairings, and exposed shafts. The specific weight of water is calculated at 1.105 in German practice...Design displacement includes 25 to 50 percent full load as above, and has been used in the German navy since 1882 as a basis for performance and speed calculations." I chose to list the full load rather than the design displacements as the ships would be operating at full load. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Do you want to include the first bit of that in a footnote?
Footnote added. I've got to run off for a bit, but I should be able to get to the rest of this later today. Parsecboy (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armament: I think this article ought to list the secondary guns as well as the main battery. During this period the secondary guns were often considered just as important as the heavy guns. We are still in the "hail of fire" school of thought.
    • It would be easier to add this to the text. Is that ok, or would you prefer it in the tables? My main concern is avoiding squeezing too much information into the tables. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely prefer it in the tables - for these ships the secondary armament is just as important as the primary.
That's a good point. I had based this list on the lists I had done for the battlecruisers and battleships, the secondaries of which were of, well, secondary importance. I put them into the armament box - that doesn't look to crammed, does it? Parsecboy (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propulsion: Ideally I would like to see horsepower figures (and I wouldn't object to ditching the mph/km/h conversions, or accomodating the conversion formula in the key)
    • Horsepower added - I don't think removing the speed conversions would fly at FLC though. We could always discuss it there and see how FLC reviewers feel about it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. Agree about talking about it at FLC.
  • A figure for costs for each ship (or for a given ship in each class) would be really helpful.
    • Same as the secondary guns above - would a line in each section of the text work? Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prefer in the table, but if it doesn't work there in the text is fine.
        • I shortened the length of the service section to allow room for the cost figures, which looks to fit in fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinks to the articles for the guns referred to would be welcome (redlinks if necessary, I don't think they need stay red for very long)
    • Added (though both are redlinks at the moment). Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we have an interwiki link to Commons:Category:World_War_I_cruisers_of_Germany ?

Thanks! The Land (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THAnks again! The Land (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/List_of_armored_cruisers_of_Germany&oldid=1028519215"