Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of unprotected cruisers of Germany/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SchroCat 10:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of unprotected cruisers of Germany[edit]

List of unprotected cruisers of Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another edition in my series on German warships, this covers the handful of unprotected cruisers built by the German Navy in the 1880s-90s, which eventually led to the modern light cruiser warship type. These ships all served on Germany's colonial stations and were mostly out of service by World War I, though one did see some (limited) active service during the war. This list of course caps this topic, which is in turn the last component of this much larger topic. Thanks to all who take the time to review this list. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Overlink on 10.5 cm K L/35.
    • Good catch
  • Not sure I see any point for conversion into short tons.
    • I tend to leave them since Americans have more experience with short tons than the other varieties - there's no real difference between converting to long tons either since Washington was a few decades away.
  • Images are appropriately licensed.
  • No DABs, external links good.
  • Don't forget the ampersand in the bibliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't usually review ship lists, but this is so far down the page without a lot of comment that I feel obligated. There's really nothing to say, you know exactly how to write these lists. Only point of note is that there's a few redirecting links that don't look intentional—US Navy, Eight Nation Alliance, sea trials—but that's minor and not required. Well done. --PresN 18:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Crisco comments
  • "Newer" and "quick-firing" a pair of adjectives that describe the guns, so yes, the comma there is needed.
  • Was China a colony of Germany? That's what the second paragraph seems to suggest (collocation between the first and second sentences). The second paragraph of the second section also suggests that
  • No, China was never formally colonized (in the way that Britain colonized India, for example) but the concessions (both territorial and legal) to the European powers approached de facto colonization.
  • In that case I'd find a way to avoid having simply "colonies", as the difference between "de facto" and "de jure" colonization can be quite contentious. "Germany's colonies and ..." what? "Vassal states" would probably be incorrect. Then what would be best? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think of simply changing "colonies" to "imperial possessions"? Parsecboy (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would still lead to the question of if Germany "possessed" China. "Colonies and other foreign interests", or...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the motley collection of old sailing ships that Germany possessed in the 1880s - the motley collection of old sailing ships that Germany then possessed, perhaps? Avoid repeating 188*
  • Sounds good to me.
  • were woefully insufficiently armed to be useful as fighting ships. - might read better without two adverbs in a row
  • See how it reads now.
  • the Bussard class in 1888 as improved versions of the Schwalbe class - one class but many versions? I'd nix the second "s" in versions
  • No, they were separate classes, just not radically different (in much the same way that SMS Seydlitz, though similar to the preceding Moltke class, was an improved design and not a member of the class)
  • Condor was the only member of the class to survive the war, and she was broken up for scrap in 1921. - And feels odd here. I'd probably use a semi colon.
  • Ok, sounds fine to me.
  • For example, powerful engines necessary for the high top speeds needed in a fleet scout were also very coal hungry, which reduced the ship's endurance; a long cruising radius was mandatory for ships intended to police Germany's far-flung colonial empire, however. - what does "however" add to this sentence? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It emphasizes the fact that the two requirements were to some extent mutually exclusive. Thanks for reviewing the list, Crisco. Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_unprotected_cruisers_of_Germany/archive1&oldid=1073364783"