Talk:Königsberg-class cruiser (1927)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Königsberg-class cruiser (1927)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 21:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Starting now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Toolbox reports that there's a link to Königsberg class cruiser (1927) (without the hyphen), but the only one I can find is the link to Category:Königsberg class cruisers (1927). - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It was probably in Template:WWIIGermanShips. Should be fine now. Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Otherwise, toolbox checks out.
• "The Königsberg class was ... their": singular "was", plural "their" (Since "They" follows, probably go plural with the whole thing ... The Königsberg-class ships were ...)
  • • I went with "These ships were the first of the Reichsmarine with a modern cruiser design; their predecessor ..." - Dank (push to talk)
• "their predecessor, Emden": their predecessor, Emden,
  • Fixed.
• "with a main battery of nine 15 cm (5.9 in) guns and twelve 50 cm (20 in) torpedo tubes": with a main battery of nine 15 cm (5.9 in) guns and with twelve 50 cm (20 in) torpedo tubes (so people won't think the torpedoes were in the main battery)
  • Sounds fine to me.
• "used in experiments with using": repetition
  • Should read better now.
• "were very crank": The wiktionary page you're linking to has a noun with that meaning, but not an adjective. It's not in M-W.
  • It's in the wrong section - you wouldn't say "the ship is a crank", you'd say "the ship is crank(y)". See for instance dictionary.com, which has it as an adjective. And it is in the online Mirriam-Webster (here, it's the 5th entry), also as an adjective. I'll be correcting the Wiktionary entry accordingly. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    • My mistake, I didn't read far enough in M-W. How about "cranky"? I think that's going to be more familiar to the so-called "general reader". - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Sounds fine to me.
• "but these were replaced later": replaced later
  • Done.
• "Throughout the course of their careers, the ships' anti-aircraft batteries were repeatedly revised and improved.": Either drop the introductory phrase, or if you want to emphasize when they were revised, be more specific about that.
  • I was trying to make clear that they weren't just modified once and were done, that it was a continual process. I feel like cutting the phrase leaves the reader saying "when?"
    • I went with "The ships' anti-aircraft batteries were revised and improved throughout the course of their careers."; does that work? - Dank (push to talk)
• "on either ends": on either end
  • Fixed.
• I'm not sure what you can do about this, but the Armor section repeats the word "thick", like, a lot.
  • I just cut them out in most places, and there shouldn't be any loss of meaning.
• Otherwise:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:  Yes

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  Yes

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:  Yes

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  Yes

   C. No original research:  Yes

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:  Yes

   B. Focused:  Yes

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:  Yes

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:  Yes

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Yes. Images are good.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Yes

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: On hold pending resolution of my initial comments. - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks for reviewing the article, Dan, I appreciate your copy-editing advice as always. Parsecboy (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

   My pleasure. Pass. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

German State Shipyards

My understanding for state yards is as follows:

Kaiserliche Werft to 1920 Rechsmarinewerft to 1920-1933 Kriegsmarinewerft 1933-1945

Irrespective of the link the shipyard names in this topic should be changed as they were constructed before 1933 Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Good catch - I'll update the article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - hopefully when I get use to the editing system I can start changing them myself. Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)