Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of armored 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 The Rambling Man 19:13, 25 April 2011 [1].

List of armored cruisers of Germany

Featured list candidates/List of armored cruisers of Germany/archive1

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third list, based on List of battlecruisers of Germany and List of battleships of Germany, both FLs. This article will be the main article for a GT/FT on the armored cruisers built (see here). It has passed a MILHIST A-class review, which can be found here. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure that this article meets the criteria for Featured List. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review the nomination. Parsecboy (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as mentioned in the A-Class review I find it better if either you mention all the namesakes or leave them out. To mention some is not uniform. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see in a footnote that the Germans were referring to these ships as Panzerkreuzer or Großer Kreuzer. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
check the alt text. It is missing for most images MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the link to Memel needs a disambig fix MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been thinking about this for a little while, and have decided that namesake information is probably a little too much detail for a list like this. I added the note and fixed the dab (thanks, btw, for fixing the note - I had gone back and forth on whether it should be plural to match "armored cruisers" and decided to make it singular, but apparently didn't change it all back). Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Naval historian Hugh Lyon remarked that the armored cruisers built by Germany were the "worst designed and least battle-worthy ships" in the navy - The German navy? Just wondering since the comment was made by a foreign historian. 122.255.43.250 (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the German navy - do you have any suggestions on how that might be made clearer? Parsecboy (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

SMS Furst Bismarck: Prose says it was scrapped in 1920, but the table gives the date as 1919–20. Which is it?
Prinz Adalbert class: "caused a catastrophic explosion in the ship's ammunition magazines that destroyed the ship." The repeated use of "ship" is a redundancy.
Try not to start a sentence with a number, like in "672 men were killed...".
Roon class: The sink date of the SMS Yorck varies in the prose and table. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching all of these - they've all been fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead image caption doesn't need a full stop.
- Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consider converting knots in the lead for the benefit of non-experts.
- Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is John Campbell?
- He's a pretty prominent naval historian. For instance, he wrote Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting, which is a pretty highly regarded work. I've added "naval historian" to the line. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have "The two Prinz Adalbert class vessels" unhyphenated but "the two Prinz Adalbert-class cruisers" hyphenated. Is there a reason?
- Wrong parameter in the template, fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is written in USEng (which it appears to me to be), shouldn't "centimetre" be "centimeter" and wouldn't Imperial units be used before decimal ones?
- Germans used the metric system, so that's what I use. I was advised this was the appropriate choice a couple years and about a score of FACs ago. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You use cm before you use centimetre.
- The centimetre/cm thing was a typo in the template - "abb=on" instead of "abbr=on". Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a query really, is there any way we can work out the "inflated" cost of these ships so we can put it into modern context?
- No, this has been thoroughly discussed and the consensus of those who know these things (I certainly do not count myself as one of them) is that these types of inflation calculations are highly problematic. See here for the last discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to relink WWI in the Prince Heinrick section (you don't relink the armament type for instance, so being consistent you wouldn't relink other text from section to section...)
- Done. Parsecboy (talk)
You repeat a redlink to 21 cm SK L/40 gun in the Roon class section (you linked it in the previous section).
- Removed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"9,719 LT; 10,885 ST" LT and ST aren't explained anywhere, and should they be capitalised? You have "long tons" in the table...
- That's how the convert template spits them out. Everything should be standardized now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corbett and Payne books have a spare period (Co..) probably down to the template...

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Alt text is not required.
- No, not required, but always better if it's there than if it's not. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could add "|lk=on" to the templates to link the units in case anyone was wondering what they were.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Chamal ^T•C 15:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Meets technical standards, and has had subject-matter expect attention at ACR. No concerns from me. Courcelles 10:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.