Talk:Gazelle-class cruiser

Category:Cruiser classes vs. Category:Gazelle class cruisers

Category:Gazelle class cruisers is itself a category within Category:Cruiser classes. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 16:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this soon. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I really liked the detail of this article and the interesting history of the Niobe. Niobe's history almost warranted its own section, but alas, that's the charm of the ship's history. I've quickly gone through and fixed a few minor wording issues as you can check from the history. In the lede the renaming of the Niobe after the German capture was a bit... odd, so I changed it to 'restored' to clarify that while the ship was original Niobe, that it was back in German possession and was not given a new name. In the article, it is clearer, but with all the names, some readers could skip over it. While this is completely optional, I'd like to know who was the designer behind the ship.

Also, Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships has a nice comment about the ship class, "They were a good comprise between the fleet scout and the overseas cruiser." Which is a little nicer then ' The design was somewhat smaller than contemporary light cruisers, but the ships were nevertheless sturdy and powerfully armed for the period.' Even if you have to directly cite Conway, the description seems better then your prose. Or just modify it as need be.

Though if I could pester Conway does mention that Medusa and Arcona were converted into floating batteries for the defense of Wilhelmshaven in 1942.[1] And were scuttled (not broken up for scrap as you note) 3 May 1945.

I could nitpick that the sinking of the Ariadne should be reflected in its own sentence instead of 'the latter', or at least by name. Though it is a word choice matter.

There is really not too much I can pick at here. It is completely neutral, I don't think anyone could question that. The images used are all fine and improve the understanding of the subject.

I'd pass this, but want to wait for your response about the Medusa and Arcona, because between the three articles this one. The defense should be noticed and so should the scuttling. Then as you are correct to note, they were salvaged. Though it seems like the final role of the two ships is strangely absent in this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of these things are differences between Groener and Conway's - I opted for the former, since Groener wrote his ship histories using original documents from the Naval Archives in the 1930s and 40s (the original printing was in 1936, and was updated in 1945 to reflect the wartime histories). The book was translated into English and updated as best as possible (since much of the German records were destroyed in a bombing raid in 1945) in 1996. Groener and the later editors had better access to the relevant information than did the editors of Conway's, and it's a more specialized work, so I feel it's the better choice.

As for the specifics: Groener says Medusa and Arcona were converted in 1940 (and has more specifics, like the dockyard that did the work, etc.). The change from "renamed" to "restored" is fine by me. I'll think on the Ariadne sentence and perhaps rework it when I get to the rest.

I do think the line from Conway's about their characteristics is worth including. And I think Groner mentions the designer - I'm in the middle of grading a stack of exams, but I should have time tomorrow to handle these things. Parsecboy (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I know it is extremely minor, its going to get its GA stamp either way, but I like to nitpick when I can about such things. Your explanation is good and it does sate my curiosity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I had another look at Groener, and he does not give the designer for the class. I added the bit from the 1906-1921 Conways, but I left in the line from the 1860-1905 volume, since it helps place the design in some kind of context compared to its contemporaries. Let me know if there's anything else you think needs to be done. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Pass. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

General characteristics

The second paragraph begins with a sentence that does not make sense/? Does it belong? Or is it vandalism? "All ten ships were crank and rolled severely"

Ed8r (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Click the link - in the nautical context, "crank" means a ship was prone to excessive rolling and susceptible to capsizing due to insufficient ballast (or poor stowing of cargo). Parsecboy (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

comments

I feel that in

Niobe, Medusa, and Arcona were broken up for scrap in the late 1940s,

Niobe should be removed.

I feel useful a note that the light-cruiser rating is an exception to the standard nomenclature to rate so the turnine-powered units.

pietro151.29.189.70 (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

But Niobe was broken up in situ during that period. Parsecboy (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Plan and profile drawing

Here on page 33. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)