# Talk:Kolberg-class cruiser

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kolberg class cruiser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 22:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh! Look! A German ship-class article! I must review it! (in all seriousness - these are always learning experiences and I don't mind reviewing them at all...) Review shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
A couple of spots where the prose isn't quite clear, etc.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lead:

25.5 kn - kn isn't a "normal" abbreviation - can we get a full word usage with the abbreviation in ()'s on the first usage?
Yup
"At the outbreak of war in August 1914, she was deployed to the Baltic..." which ship is meant by "she" here?
It's Augsburg - since the last mention of her is in the previous paragraph, I can see how that's unclear.
General characteristics:

Same as above about the kn for the meters here?
I'm confused, the first usage of meters isn't abbreviated.
Linkage and quickie explanation for "displaced"?
Linked
"...hulls were constructed with longitudinal and transverse steel frames." Can we translate this into non-shipese for those of us not ship-building inclined.
It just means length-wise and width-wise - I can't think of appropriate synonyms at the moment, any ideas?
"The ships were good sea boats..." I think I get what this means ... but I'm not sure. It means that they didn't have problems in heavy seas?
Basically, yes.
Machinery:

"... supplementary oil-firing;" this means what exactly?
Added a bit to help clarify this
Linkie for "speed trials"?
Linked to sea trial
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. You know the drill. The usual excellent work here .. if a bit dry. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article, Ealdgyth :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I can't think of a way to reword either... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're so insistent that the infobox not include any information about the fact that ships of this class had literally their entire armament changed from 1917-1918, when articles on most warship classes that had such a major refit do include such info in their infoboxes. — Red XIV (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

No, most well-done articles (i.e., that have passed GA or above) keep the boxes as simple as possible. Only in the cases where the ships were heavily modified are separate infoboxes included (see for instance, Ise-class battleship, which does include a separate box, and Yamato-class battleship, which does not). In this case, half of the ships weren't still afloat for the refit that Kolberg and Augsburg received. Parsecboy (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The Yamato-class battleships didn't have a major refit, just a series of minor ones. Only secondary and AA armament was changed. The surviving Kolberg-class cruisers had literally every gun removed and new ones of larger caliber mounted in their place. — Red XIV (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: If you insist but it looks horrible. To be fair [1] doesn't discriminate; I do. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's just like, your opinion, man ;) I prefer to keep the formatting as close to the title on the book/journal/etc. as possible. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)