Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of heavy 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 Giants2008 21:10, 12 March 2012 [1].

---

List of heavy cruisers of Germany

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

• Featured list candidates/List of heavy cruisers of Germany/archive1

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Another list of German warships, this one comprises all of the heavy cruisers built or designed by Germany in the 1920s through 1940s. The list has already passed a MILHIST A-class review (see here), and is the capstone to this project, which will be ready to head over to WP:GT once this article makes FL. I feel this list is very close to FL quality, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring it meets the criteria. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Alt text for the images would be nice.
• For the ships with 10,000 t displacement, the lead shows them as having 9,800 long tons of displacement, but the body shows 10,000 in multiple places.
• The text says Lutzow was scrapped in the 1950s, but the table says 1960.
• Ref 10 should give the page range as pp., not p. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't really like messing with alt text, since, as far as I'm aware, they still haven't figured out what exactly is useful for alt text.
  • The tonnage discrepancy was a convert template error, should have been 10,000 long tons, not metric tons.
  • A result of a disagreement over the eventual fate of the ship - one source says 1958-59, another says 1960. Updated to reflect this.
  • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments "panzerschiffe " my German is rusty but shouldn't that be Panzerschiffe throughout? "10,000 long tons (10,000 t)" but "50,000 long tons (51,000 t)", so should 10,000 long tons be 10,200 t? And then "16,020 long tons (16,280 t)"..... looks like an inconsistent conversion is being used, or truncation of division not be used consistently. On second thoughts, it might be a sourcing issue. Either way, (and especially now I've seen 20,000 long tons (20,000 t)) the inconsistency needs to be resolved or explained... Need to follow MOS:DTT for row and col spans (to assist screen readers per WP:ACCESS) in each of the tables. "canceled" or "cancelled"? "in Bikini Atoll" or "in the Bikini Atoll"? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Should all be addressed, thanks for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments MOS:NUMBERS states numbers over nine should use their numerical form and not be spelled out. twenty-two needs in the first para needs to be in numerals, can see a few more as well. "Admiral Graf Spee was meanwhile scuttled after the Battle of the River Plate" this sentence troubles me. "was meanwhile" doesn't read brilliantly i would remove meanwhile, also what was scuttled mean? As I'm not aware of this term, if there is a wikilink to it that would help You relink a few terms in the Deutschland class that were linked in the lead such as the Spanish Civil War, yet World War II is not linked in that section, any reason why? "but Hitler allowed only increases to..." swap allowed and only round so it reads, "but Hitler only allowed increases..." "Admiral Hipper was scuttled by her crew after having been heavily damaged..." not keen on 'after having been' reads awkwardly, would change to "Admiral Hipper was scuttled by her crew due to heavy damage sustained by RAF bombers." NapHit (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC) See WP:NUMERAL - the MOS actually says that any number that can be expressed in one or two words can be either spelled out or in Arabic numerals. I prefer to spell out numbers less than 50. Fair enough, hadn't noticed that before. NapHit (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Linked to Scuttling, removed "meanwhile" No real reason. Fixed. The sentence is grammatically fine (past perfect rather than simple past), though there is a passive voice issue. How does "Admiral Hipper's crew scuttled the ship after she sustained heavy damage from RAF bombers" sound? Parsecboy (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC) That sounds fine to me NapHit (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support NapHit (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. By the way, the lead image could use some cropping. Goodraise 23:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Overall looks good, just one comment:
  • D class, "In 1933, Hitler authorized...". Although I have a hard time believing anyone might not know who Hitler was, I would suggest giving his full name, position and linking to his article on the first occurrence of his name.
• This comment does not effect my support, as it is quite minor. Prose, sourcing and images all look solid. Dana boomer (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a fair point - added first name, link, and position. Parsecboy (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you! Everything looks good now. Dana boomer (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk In the first paragraph you spell it Panzerschiffe, but in the third paragraph, and again in P-class: Panzerschiff. Is there a reason for them being different (I speak no German), or is one a typo? Panzerschiffe is plural, Panzerschiff is singular. "Most of the heavy cruisers were used as commerce raiders during the war," – Is this referring to the Spanish Civil War, the only war mentioned in this paragraph, or World War II? Presumably the paragraph switches to World War II at some point if not there, and this needs to be made clear. Could you link caliber in the "Deutschland class" section? The prose states that "The treaty limited large German warships to a displacement of 10,000 long tons (10,160 t)" but in the table, the displacements are all around 15,000 long tons: could the reason for this be stated somewhere? "Lützow was re-floated by the Soviet Navy and expended as a target in July 1947." – I have no idea at all what that means. Some explanation would be nice. Does linking to target ship clarify this? Incidentally, the ship's page and the class page both have the "10,000 long tons (10,000 t)" problem, so it might be worth having a look around all the articles in the proposed GT for this! Why no reference in the table for the fate of the Admiral Scheer? In the D class section the prose states "20,000 long tons (20,000 t)" presumably this needs to change to "20,000 long tons (20,321 t)" as is used in the table. "..three O class battlecruisers. The O-class ships.." – remove the hyphen from the second use of O class here. The lead also uses a hyphen in the third paragraph, remove that too! Actually, both should have hyphens - when used with a noun (like battlecruiser, ship, etc.) the name of the class is treated as a compound adjective. The only time hyphens aren't used is when the class name is used by itself, (i.e,. the ships of the O class). "The O-class ships were significantly larger, faster, and more powerful. These ships, however, were also not built." – If they were never built, they couldn't be larger, faster OR more powerful. They "would have been significantly larger, faster and more powerful." Or something similar. "to build 50,000 long tons (51,000 t) of heavy cruisers, enough for five 10000-long ton ships." – Inconsistent displacement notage. "10000-long ton ships" appears to be the only time in the whole list that a conversion isn't given, and no comma is used in a long number. 10,000 long tons is converted above, you don't need to convert a number every time. Again for the Admiral Hipper class, is there a reason that the displacement is so much higher than the Treaty allowed them? Navies at this time, especially the German Navy, were routinely violating treaty restrictions - the treaty system had largely fallen apart in 1937 when Japan backed out, anyway. That said, this article really isn't the place to discuss this. In the "Deutschland class" section, you use a lower case 't' for treaty, but in "Admiral Hipper class" you use a capital "T". I don't really have a preference either way, but you need to be consistent. Why no reference in the table for the fate of the Blücher? Harrias talk 11:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Everything else should be addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• In fact, going a little bit deeper on this last point, the German cruiser Deutschland article suggests there is some disagreement about the final fate of the Lützow; but only one fate is listed in this list as "fact".
  • Prager is based on the declassified Soviet archives, the others are works from the 60s-80s, and thus less reliable.
    • It just seems inconsistent that on the ship's article it states that "The ultimate fate of Lützow is unclear" but in this article no allusion is made at all to the uncertainty. Harrias ^talk 12:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - It all looks quite solid to me, and I'm not seeing any issues- Harrias's above point looks to be settled in the article. --PresN 19:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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