Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of light cruisers of Germany/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of light cruisers of Germany[edit]
List of light cruisers of Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
Another in my series of German warship types, this comprises the light cruisers built from the 1890s to the 1940s. This is the capstone for this topic. It passed a MILHIST ACR last month. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
- To what use did the Reichsmarine and Kriegsmarine put Hamburg and Berlin? Barracks ships or similar?
- Explain Dresden's fate.
- Link beach and grounded.
- Images are appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
On first glance I find nothing wrong with the list, although list is a bit of an understatement. However, I found some minor points that should be addressed:
- The first sentence - though accurate - seems unnecessarily complicated to me. Maybe we could drop the reference to the different historical periods as they are reflected in the names of the navies mentioned?
- Sounds fine to me.
- The second chapter is titled World War II-era, but covers mostly the inter-war period. Maybe it should be called Post-World War I-era or something alike.
- In the paragraph on Emden (1925) the phrase "by the reformed Reichsmarine" is used. As someone else pointed out, it should be re-formed, as it is rather questionable that the Reichsmarine saw the errors of its ways and repented.
- Good catch.
- In the paragraph on the Leipzig-class, Gotenhafen is mentioned. Maybe it could be extended by the present-day name, Gdynia, Poland. And a time reference would be in order.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good list. A few minor comments.
- "foreign stations" - I think this should be defined.
- "five members of the succeeding Königsberg and Leipzig classes" - presumably members means ships but it sounds a bit odd to me.
- It's a pretty routine way to refer to the ships in a class.
- "A further six ships of the M class were planned in the late 1930s, but the outbreak of war forced their cancellation." Why would war force their cancellation rather than making proceeding with them a higher priority? (I see this is explained below but I think a revised wording would be helpful).
- Because once war breaks out, the most pressing needs get priority of construction (in this case, U-boats). Again, I think spelling this out is too much detail in the lead.
- Brummer class. "And to further aid them in their offensive minelaying role, they were designed to resemble British cruisers." Why did resembling British cruisers help them - for disguise?
Dudley Miles (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - if you spot a ship in the foggy, squally North Sea that looks like a British ship, you won't open fire immediately, which gives the German ships a bit longer to escape. Added "to help conceal their identity." - does that clear it up any? Thanks for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support typically excellent work. Would only have one wish, that the tables were all formatted the same, but it may be a screen width issue that shrinks the Karlsruhe section and Cöln section compared to the others. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, TRM. I've checked the tables on my desktop, laptop and smart phone and they all looked fine on those screens, but I guess that wasn't enough ;) I added {{clear}} templates after the images so that should keep them from pushing the tables over. Parsecboy (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see the article is written in AmEng, but is it normal to have a non-US date format used as well? - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Germany uses day-month-year format so that's what I went with. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.