Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battleships of Germany
- 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.
- Promoted by NativeForeigner 01:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
This list will eventually tie together all of the German BBs in one big happy FT (though we're still a far ways away from that at the moment). This is basically a repeat of the List of battlecruisers of Germany list I did back in January. The main concern for me is the prose. For instance, is the lead too "wall of text"-y? Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The lead does seem a fair bit Wall o' Text. Of course, it is an important subject, but... If there was some way to cut the intro to, I'd say about 2/3 of its present size, I think that would look good. Otherwise, looks great to me. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Agreed, the ideal length in my opinion is that which you have on the battlecruisers list. That being said, I think if you cut about four sentences that would help tremendously. -MBK004 05:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, this list (and therefore the introduction) is covering nearly 50 ships and a half dozen unfinished designs over the span of 60+ years of naval expansion, the BC list covers 7 ships and 3 unfinished designs over barely more than 25 years. The lead is going to have to be significantly longer than in the BC list by the very nature of the significantly larger topic it's covering.
- That being said, I have trimmed down the second and third paragraphs. Does that look any better? Also, would the addition of a second image to the lead make it less of a "wall-o-text?" Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, the ideal length in my opinion is that which you have on the battlecruisers list. That being said, I think if you cut about four sentences that would help tremendously. -MBK004 05:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I think it's rather better now, and with the extensiveness of the subject matter, agree that not much more trimming could be reasonably done. More images are always good, as long as they don't produce blocks of white space through interference (admittedly, I'm not the best judge of that, having a wider-than normal monitor). - The Bushranger (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, my monitor is larger than usual as well. I was hoping to find a picture of at least Scharnhorst and Gneisenau together (or any WWII capital ships together) to fit with the image currently in the lead, but that doesn't seem available, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems reported with alt text, dab links, or external links. One nitpick: there seems to be varied instances of "broken up" and "scrapped" appearing in the fate section in the tables, unless there is a notable difference between the two I would suggest picking one of the two terms and sticking with it; otherwise note the difference in the article somewhere. Also, it may be worth noting somewhere that while the generally accepted version of the Bismark has her sunk in action against the British, there are those who say that the battlewagon was scuttled to prevent her from falling into British hands. s TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I believe the scuttling theory is pretty much "on the fringe" (although of course I may be mistaken), so I'd think it would be best as an in-article topic; especially since, either way, the proximate cause of sinking was the British. ;) - The Bushranger (talk)
- Hence why I said "destroyed", not "sunk" or "scuttled" :p That being said, I believe the opposite is true, Bushranger. There have been a couple of expeditions with ROVs small enough to enter the ship, and both have concluded that shellfire and torpedoes didn't cause enough damage and flooding to sink the ship (for instance, see this NYT article about the Cameron expedition). You are correct, though, that the proximate cause of sinking was the British ships. Not like the Germans were going to just up and sink her for the hell of it :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and as for the "broken up/scrapped" thing, I was just going for some variety of word choice. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence why I said "destroyed", not "sunk" or "scuttled" :p That being said, I believe the opposite is true, Bushranger. There have been a couple of expeditions with ROVs small enough to enter the ship, and both have concluded that shellfire and torpedoes didn't cause enough damage and flooding to sink the ship (for instance, see this NYT article about the Cameron expedition). You are correct, though, that the proximate cause of sinking was the British ships. Not like the Germans were going to just up and sink her for the hell of it :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I believe the scuttling theory is pretty much "on the fringe" (although of course I may be mistaken), so I'd think it would be best as an in-article topic; especially since, either way, the proximate cause of sinking was the British. ;) - The Bushranger (talk)
- Comment: This article is very good in my opinion and meets the A class criteria. I have only one comment which I feel needs to be addressed, then I will be happy to support:
there is some inconsistency in terminology: you use "First World War" in the Nassau class section, but then in other sections including the Brandenburg class and Helgoland class sections you use "World War I". I think you should use World War I, as you use "World War II" not "Second World War", so it would seem to make sense to use the similar term. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed, thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: My concern has been addressed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - this is probably ready for FLC. -MBK004 08:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.