Talk:Königsberg-class cruiser (1927)
Good topic candidate | Promoted |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- 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 ]
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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?"
- "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:
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality: Yes
- B. lists: Yes
- A. Prose quality: Yes
- 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
- A. Has an
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects: Yes
- B. Focused: Yes
- A. Major aspects: Yes
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias: Yes
- Fair representation without bias: Yes
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc: Yes
- No edit wars, etc: Yes
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are 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 suitable captions: Yes
- A. Images are
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: On hold pending resolution of my initial comments. - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 24 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)