Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships 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 Dabomb87 23:25, 11 May 2010 [1].

List of battleships of Germany[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the capstone article for what will eventually be the capstone for a FT composed of 50-some-odd-articles. Essentially, it's a much larger version of the corresponding battlecruiser list that caps that FT. This just passed a joint MILHIST/SHIPS A-class review (found here). I believe it meets the criteria for a featured list, so here we are. I thank in advance all editors who take the time to look the list over. Parsecboy (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • "The other four were canceled without any work being done. Design work continued which culminated in the massive H-44 class, though it was merely a design study." -- needs copyediting
    • "Rheinland and Westfalen were sent to Finland to support the Finns in their civil war, but Rheinland ran aground off the Åland Islands and was severely damaged." -- give us a date so we don't have to click the link, and what Finnish faction were they supporting? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • They supported the Whites. I added that and a more specific time-frame for the expedition to Finland. I also tweaked the sentence you mentioned, does it read better now? Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ...also, wasn't it more of a revolution/war of independence than a civil war? - The Bushranger (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article is at Finnish Civil War, and every source I have seen it in refers to it as such. It was because there were two factions: the Reds and the Whites. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. I should read up on that sometime. Also, Support. - The Bushranger (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments.

  1. Previous classes included several types of coastal defense ships and armored frigates. Why does not it mention iroclad ships mentioned in the leading section?
    Do you mean in the list? Because those are not battleships. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean that the lead says: Germany had previously built a series of smaller ironclad warships, coastal defense ships, and armored frigates. However the first section says: Previous classes included several types of coastal defense ships and armored frigates. The main idea as understand is that those ship types predated battle ships and served as the basis for them. This is particularly true for the ironclad ships, which were immediate ancestors of battleships. So, I find, it is strange that ironclad ships are mentioned in the lead, but not in the main text. Ruslik_Zero 14:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kaiser Wilhelm II saw service as the fleet flagship until 1906. Does it mean service in I Squadron or III Squadron?
    This has been clarified (I think). Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The section about Brandenburg class does not mention the squadron they were assigned to. (I Battle Squadron?)
    Post-refit they were assigned to the II Squadron, I don't know about before the refit. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked because Wittelsbach section below says that the Wittelsbach class ships were assigned to the I Battle Squadron, where they replaced the older Brandenburg class ships. As to the information about II Squadron, it should be added. Ruslik_Zero 15:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think that Wittelsbach class section should say (just before the last sentence) that all ships except Zähringen were broken in 1921-1922.
    Added. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Broken up in 1949–50 (in Wittelsbach class Table). I would say that she was sunk in 1944, not broken in 1949-50 as it was the wreck that was really broken, not the ship.
    I clarified this. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. After the war, Lothringen and Preußen were converted into depot ships for minesweepers. They were eventually scrapped in 1931. However the table in this section says that Preußen was Sunk by bombers in 1945, raised in 1954 and scrapped?
    Clarified. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Hannover was struck in 1935 and eventually broken up in 1944–46 (Deutschland class) What did strike her in 1935? Did she participate in a war?
    Maybe add a link to stricken? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. What is the difference between being Broken up in 1924 and being Scrapped in 1920? (Nassau class) The text says that all of them were scrapped. This concerns other sections too. You should use a uniform terminology: either scrapped or broken. (If there is no difference, of course.)
    There's no difference, I was just going for variety in word choice. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Still uniform terminology is better. Ruslik_Zero 15:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The five ships were Kaiser, Friedrich der Grosse, Kaiserin, Prinzregent Luitpold, and König Albert. This duplicates the first sentence in this section. (Kaiser class)
    Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The Kaiser class ships mounted ten 30.5 cm (12 in) SK L/50 guns in five twin turrets; one turret was mounted fore, two aft in a superfiring arrangement, and the other two in a staggered "wing" arrangement amidships. Kaiser or König? In addition, the article about König class does not mention this arrangement. According to it (and articles about specific König ships) the guns were arranged as described in the next sentence: one of the wing turrets was moved forward and placed in a superfiring arrangement, while the second wing turret was moved to the centerline amidships. Please, clarify.
    I'm not sure how to make it more clear (it seems clear to me, but then I did write it). The point was to describe the arrangement on the Kaisers and then show how it was improved for the Konigs. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved the first sentence to the previous section. Ruslik_Zero 15:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Baden replaced Friedrich der Grosse as the flagship of the High Seas Fleet The section about Kaiser class does not mention that Friedrich der Grosse was the flagship.
    Added. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I noticed that some image captions mention the year in which the photo was take, while others do not. I think all captions should be dated if years are available.
    Years have been added where possible. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Personal thing, but I'd merge these two sentences: "Germany had previously built a series of smaller ironclad warships, coastal defense ships, and armored frigates.[Note 1] These ships were primarily intended to defend Germany's North and Baltic Sea coasts in wartime.[1]"
  • Should Great Power be capitalised as such? Our article doesn't seem to follow that..
    • I've seen it capitalized frequently in books. I think the article on great power is more about the concept and so would be a common noun. It most frequently refers to Great Britain, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Prussia/Germany, which I think would be a proper noun. For example, it's capitalized in the Congress of Vienna article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Admiral von Tirpitz secured a series..." could you not just say "von Turpitz"?
    • Well, von Turpitz would just be foolish :P Seriously, though, I wanted to avoid capitalizing the "von." Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally picky, but "the final law envisioned" do laws "envision"?
    • I guess technically the drafters of the law "envision," but I see nothing wrong with transferring that to the bill itself. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the German navy in 1928" should that be "the German Navy"? Particularly as you go on to say "to be built in 1918 for the German Navy. "....
  • "to 35 percent of the " why not just 35%?
    • I generally prefer text to symbols, I just think it looks better. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My browser makes the Barbarossa image leak into the next section over the table (OS X, Safari).
    • I don't know what to do about that...works fine in my browser (even when there was no text, like here, it worked fine). Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "same armament of 24 cm guns" - four 24 cm guns?
  • You don't link WW II in the lead but you do in the list.
  • "end of the World War I" well, either "the First World War" (highly preferable to an Englishman!) or no "the".
  • H class proposals table... lots of em-dashes. What do they mean?
    • Thought it looked better than leaving it blank (since there's nothing to put in those fields, and leaving them empty might make one think the box was unfinished). Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on one of your points: "German Navy" would look odd to my eye. "the German navy" would be equivilant to "the navy of Germany"; the proper noun would best be the untranslated German term of the period ([i]Reichsmarine[/i], [i]Kriegsmarine[/i], etc.). - The Bushranger (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the article needs to be internally consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's now just "German navy" where the specific incarnation is not mentioned. Parsecboy (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's the status on Ruslik's remaining comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only one that was still outstanding was the second unstruck one about the Brandenburgs' squadron assignment. I've just added that to the article, so everything should be addressed now. Parsecboy (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a few comments tho;
    • "they were not serious proposals due to the infeasibility and expense of the ships." who said it wasnt serious?
      • Gröner, whose book is based entirely on the German naval archives, states that they were "projected designs only." Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd prefer that sentence instead. "According to Gröner they were "projected designs only" " or something similar. It smells of OR as it stands.Sandman888 (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it's not. He had access to the entire German naval archives; if he says they were only projected designs, that's what they were.
          • If you'd like more, Sturton states "These studies must be considered as purely paper studies, the results of keeping a large design team in being for the major part of the war." Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""hail of fire" theory, which emphasized smaller, rapid firing guns over larger and slower guns." is the number of guns held constant?
    • Generally, yes; the Kaiser Friedrich IIIs and Wittelsbachs each had four rapid-firing large-caliber guns, which was the same as contemporary ships that had larger, slower firing guns. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although this was still smaller than the standard 12 inches (30 cm) guns used on British ships." why is this sentence relevant?
    • German battleships, basically up until Bismarck, had smaller main guns than did their British rivals. I was just pointing out that after the switch to 28cm guns, this was still true. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikilink ceded, allied powers
  • "Bismarck was disabled by a torpedo hit from a Fairey Swordfish launched from Ark Royal and subsequently destroyed by the battleships Rodney and King George V on 27 May." I guess those are English ships? you cd write something like "In a British retaliation, Bismarck was disabled by a torpedo hit from a Fairey Swordfish launched from Ark Royal and subsequently destroyed by the battleships Rodney and King George V on 27 May."


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_battleships_of_Germany/archive1&oldid=1136457063"