Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of unprotected cruisers of Germany

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of unprotected cruisers of Germany

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Another entry in my series of lists on German warship types, this covers the handful of unprotected cruisers Germany built in the 1880s-90s. It's the capstone list for this topic, which is in turn the final component of the overarching cruiser topic. Thanks to those who review the list and help to improve it on its way to FLC. Parsecboy (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • comments support and suggestions (bitching at a high quality level)
      • Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert; Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 2. Ratingen: Mundus Verlag. ISBN 978-3-8364-9743-5.
      • Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert; Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 3. Ratingen: Mundus Verlag. ISBN 3-7822-0211-2.
      • Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert; Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 7. Ratingen, DE: Mundus Verlag. ASIN B003VHSRKE
    • The sources could profit from some uniform representation of location, publisher and isbn. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder if the use of File:Naval Ensign of Germany.svg in the {{German Navy ship types}} is good and fair representation of all the various German regimes. The various ships listed in this template date back to Prussia, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, Weimar Republic, East? and West Germany? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every ship, excl. Gefion, was named after some kind of bird. Do you know the story behind this? Is this worth pointing out? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • For some reason, the KM had went into a short "mythological names" phase in the early 1890s - Undine, Thetis, Heimdall, etc., but I don't know why. I can tell you that by the late 1890s, the naming rules changed to be city names for small cruisers and either states or names related to royal houses (Zähringen, for instance) as part of a strategy to rally public support around the fleet.
    • In the lead "In the 1880s, Germany built nine unprotected cruisers between three classes. These ships proved to be transitional designs, and along with experience gathered with a series of avisos, they helped to produce the first light cruisers of the German Navy" The underlined text points to two lists. I suggest that it may be helpful to first tell the reader what an aviso or a light cruiser is before sending them to a list of things they don't know what they are. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • See how it looks now.
    • "1889–1890" and "1900–1901", should this be "1889–90" and "1900–01" according to WP:DATE (see ranges)? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport. Looks good to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure if the meaning of "class" in the opening sentence is immediately obvious to the layman. Is there a reasonable article we can link to?
  • they helped to produce the first light cruisers of the German Navy presumably it was the experience/expertise gained from these that helped produce light cruisers, rather than the unprotected cruisers themselves?
    • See how its worded here.
  • Condor, Schwalbe, and Sperber were all broken up for scrap in the early 1920s, while Gefion was briefly used as a freighter Why no mention of their careers during WWI?
    • Added a line on that.
  • File:S.M. kleiner kreuzer Gefion - restoration, borderless.jpg needs a copyright tag to indicate its status in its source country.
    • The one tag covers it too, since it also includes the 70 years PMA (which applies in the EU).
  • File:Bundesarchiv Bild 134-B0211, Kleiner Kreuzer "Schwalbe".jpg dates from 1887 and is therefore almost certainly in the public domain, though it's free enough for our purposes regardless, so it's not a big deal.
    • Maybe, maybe not - it's quite possible that whoever took the picture was young in 1887 and lived into the 1930s, which means it still would have been copyrighted in Germany in 1996 and thus had its copyright extended in the US by the much hated URAA. Without a date of publication and a date of death for the author we can't be sure, so the license from the Bundesarchiv will certainly do instead.

This is a nice piece of work; just a few minor quibbles and it'll be easily up to scratch. I made a few copy-edits, which you might want to check. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: not much from me. I made a minor tweak but overall, I think it looks up to the required standard (caveat: I know nought about lists, so apologies if I missed anything):

  • this clause seems a bit awkward: "the old sailing ships were woefully insufficiently armed to be useful as fighting ships" (the two words ending in "ly" next to each other). I'd probably just say "insufficiently armed"
    • I was trying to drive home the point that they were next to useless when it came to actual combat - just "insufficiently armed" doesn't seem strong enough to me. Two "ly" words can work together, from a grammatical standpoint (since an adverb can modify a verb and another adverb), but I understand it might read a little awkwardly. Would "were far too insufficiently armed" be a better substitute?
      • G'day, that doesn't quite sound right to me either (but I think I've been so institutionalised by working as a staff officer, that I've removed all emotion from my writing). What about "so poorly armed that they were ineffective as combat ships"? Anyway, I'll leave it up to you. The list looks great either way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two and a half years" (does this need hyphens? Not sure, I would normally hyphenate it, but I'm not sure about US English)
    • I don't think so, though Dan would know better than I do.
  • in the References, Ratingen is probably over linked. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/List_of_unprotected_cruisers_of_Germany&oldid=1075714090"