Talk:Sachsen-class ironclad

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:
   1. "The German navy regarded the ships as poor sea boats, with severe rolling, and a tendency to ship water." - what does it mean to "ship water?" put a note in or explain please.

      Changed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

   2. "The four ships remained with the fleet until shortly after the turn of the century." - I don't think "turn of the century" is very encyclopedic. Please give a more specific date.

      The specific dates are given in the rest of the paragraph - does "...until the first decade of the 20th century" sound better? Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

   3. What was the significance of this class? Were there other coastal defense-type ships built after or was the idea scrapped? Sounds like this class didn't operate successfuly and a little look at the bigger picture might help.

      The Navy went on a battleship building hiatus until the Siegfried-class coastal defense ships of the late 1880s - added a bit to this effect. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
   1. The infobox needs a cite for fast reference.

      Do you mean you want footnotes in the infobox? Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

   2. Last ref in the "Armament and armor" is malformed and showing up in the text.

      Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Good

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Good

5. It is stable:

   Good

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Good

7. Overall:

   A very good article already. On hold pending a few additions. —Ed!^(talk) 04:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

   Excellent, passing the GA now. —Ed!^(talk) 22:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo

here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

And here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Frigate or Corvette?

Was the German term for these ships ausfallkorvette or 'sortie corvette'? They were certainly very different beasts from the ironclad frigates of the German fleet, which all featured the very traditional frigate feature of a single complete gun deck below the full-length spar deck. This class notably lacked this feature. I am sure there is a sound reason behind calling them frigates, but is that what they were? These ships have also been described in some texts as 'central citadel ironclads', based on their armour layout. Clearly that is not a more appropriate description than 'frigate' but, one wonders if a return to simply 'ironclad' in the meantime would be? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:C9F4:BB37:E4D6:B7C9 (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Armored corvette is probably where we should land - I can't recall why I chose frigate back in 2007, but I agree that it's not right. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)