From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
 |
 |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|
The last article in [[Wikipedia:Featured topics/Armored cruisers of Germany|this series]] to grace the hallowed halls of MH-ACR: I wrote the article more than 15 years ago (which feels astonishing to say) and made some significant improvements over the last few months. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article, and I look forward to polishing it up so it’s ready for FAC in the near future. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 19:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC) |
The last article in [[Wikipedia:Featured topics/Armored cruisers of Germany|this series]] to grace the hallowed halls of MH-ACR: I wrote the article more than 15 years ago (which feels astonishing to say) and made some significant improvements over the last few months. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article, and I look forward to polishing it up so it’s ready for FAC in the near future. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 19:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC) |
||
|
====Nick-D==== |
|||
|
This article is in excellent shape. I’d like to offer the following comments: |
|||
|
* “traditional armored cruisers” – this distinction seems a bit obscure for the first sentence |
|||
|
* ” and marked the culmination” – the grammar is a bit off here |
|||
|
*The third para of the lead should note that it was the squadron that crossed the Pacific, and not just these two ships. |
|||
|
*”second command flagship” – should this be second ”in” command? |
|||
|
*For the design section, can anything more be said about habitability and the like? (e.g. did the ships have provisions for the crew given they were intended to operate a long way from home? Did they have decent ventilation for tropical climates?, etc) |
|||
|
*”As was customary for warships of the period” … “As was the standard for German warships” – starting successive paras like this is a bit repetitive |
|||
|
*Some extra text is needed to connect the first para of the World War I section to the Battle of Coronel section. |
|||
|
*The literature on the Royal Australian Navy in World War I usually makes the point that the battlecruiser HMAS Australia was superior to both these ships, which is part of the reason they left the western Pacific soon after at the outbreak of war. It might be good to note this. |
|||
|
*” attack the three British cruisers under the command of Admiral Christopher Cradock” – I’d suggest saying what this command was and where it was operating [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 05:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 05:49, 21 December 2025
« Return to A-Class review list
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Scharnhorst-class cruiser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The last article in this series to grace the hallowed halls of MH-ACR: I wrote the article more than 15 years ago (which feels astonishing to say) and made some significant improvements over the last few months. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article, and I look forward to polishing it up so it’s ready for FAC in the near future. Parsecboy (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
This article is in excellent shape. I’d like to offer the following comments:
- “traditional armored cruisers” – this distinction seems a bit obscure for the first sentence
- ” and marked the culmination” – the grammar is a bit off here
- The third para of the lead should note that it was the squadron that crossed the Pacific, and not just these two ships.
- “second command flagship” – should this be second in command?
- For the design section, can anything more be said about habitability and the like? (e.g. did the ships have provisions for the crew given they were intended to operate a long way from home? Did they have decent ventilation for tropical climates?, etc)
- “As was customary for warships of the period” … “As was the standard for German warships” – starting successive paras like this is a bit repetitive
- Some extra text is needed to connect the first para of the World War I section to the Battle of Coronel section.
- The literature on the Royal Australian Navy in World War I usually makes the point that the battlecruiser HMAS Australia was superior to both these ships, which is part of the reason they left the western Pacific soon after at the outbreak of war. It might be good to note this.
- ” attack the three British cruisers under the command of Admiral Christopher Cradock” – I’d suggest saying what this command was and where it was operating Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
