Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ironclad warships 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 19:10, 15 January 2012 [1].

---

List of ironclad warships of Germany

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

• Featured list candidates/List of ironclad warships of Germany/archive1

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This is another list of German warships (similar to my previous lists on battlecruisers, battleships, and armored cruisers); this one is a list of German ironclads, or Victorian-era battleships. It caps off this project, which is all but ready for nomination as a Good Topic. The article has previously passed a WP:MILHIST A-class review. I feel the article meets Featured List criteria, and look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this is the case. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments – SMS Prinz Adalbert: Before the second use of reference 7 in this section, there's an excess space, and there's no space afterwards. Move the cite back and it will solve both problems. SMS Friedrich Carl: "The ship was commissioned into the Prussian Navy in January 1867". The table says October, not January. Are you confusing this with the launch month? SMS Kronprinz: Excess space before the comma after "The Prussians conducted only two sorties in which Kronprinz participated". SMS Konig Wilheim: "SMS Konig Wilheim was laid down in 1865 at the Thames Ironworks shipyard at in London". Either "at" or "in" needs to go toward the end of this bit. Kaiser class: "both ships designed by Edward Reed and were built by the Samuda Brothers shipyard in London." Given that this is the second part of the sentence, it would be a smoother read if "were" was moved to before "designed". The prose says Deutschland was sold for scrap in 1908, but the table says it was broken up in 1909. Did the two happen in different years? (Just checking since I'm not an expert on these things.) Sachsen class: The dates given for Baden's selling/scrapping are 1938 (sold) and 1939–1940 (scrapped). I assume that these are correct as well? Giants2008 (Talk) 19:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC) First five are fixed, Deutschland was sold in 1908 and scrapped in 1909, and Baden was used as a target ship until 1938. Thanks for finding all of those. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments "Prinz Adalbert was similarly delayed," then why not just say Britain delayed the delivery of both? Fixed. "The latter two vessels" don't need to repeat vessels here. Fixed. In fact, you could merge that shortish sentence with its predecessor like "...followed by two Kaiser-class vessels in the middle of the decade, the last capital ships..."? Or something more elegant? Fixed. "The date the keel began to be assembled" reads a little clumsily to me, perhaps "The date the keel assembly commenced" would be better. Fixed. Friedrich Carl and Kronprinz and Hansa and Kaiser and Oldenburg don't have their gun calibres in Imperial terms. Conversions are only required for the first instance. Strikes me as an odd approach, especially if you navigate using the TOC. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC) That's the generally preferred approach (I was instructed to remove repeat conversions in previous FLCs/ACRs) Parsecboy (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC) But you repeat the conversions in the prose... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC) They shouldn't have been repeated there either. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Ok, so one way or the other, you're internally consistent now, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, thanks to your attention to detail :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC) You translate Konig Wilhelm but not Kronprinz, is there a reason for that? Added. You start relinking the units from Wilhelm onwards, why? Simple copy-paste error. Sachsen has 6 x 26 guns (no units at all). Fixed. Why doesn't the Sachsen have a cost? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Groner doesn't have it, for some reason. Added a note to that effect. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support my picky issues dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment The tables fail WP:ACCESS see MOS:DTT for how to rectify this, other than this the list looks great. NapHit (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• How does the list fail ACCESS? As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with the list as far as MOS:DTT is concerned (correct captions, no spliced column headers, no use of color, and no nested tables). Can you explain please? Parsecboy (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to add row scopes and col scopes, if you look at the MOS:DTT, you'll see that the row haeder is shaded, they are not on this list. Also the tables have no captions, its all explained at MOS:DTT. The scopes are needed for unsighted readers that's why it fails ACCESS. NapHit (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be possible to add the "scope="row" |" lines to the template without breaking the tables, at least with the example given at MOS:DTT. I'm not well versed in template building - is there someone more experienced who can take a look? As for captions, that seems redundant to the section headings (which seems to be the general thrust of the discussion here) - I think it would be best to hold off until some consensus is formed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done the first table for you as an example. Regarding the captions, they are required, as its for people using screen readers so they need the caption to be able to tell them what the table is about. Most Featured lists that are promoted now utilise these, regardless of whether there is a header close by. NapHit (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the rest of the row and column labels, but I really do not like the table headers (which in my opinion decrease the visual appeal of the list - FLC criteria 5a). Is it possible to hide the captions so they don't show up but they'll still be available for screen readers? Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think its possible to make captions available to screen readers, I'll leave this up in case another editor suggests captions should be included, its not enough to abstain from supporting. I support the list regardless, great work. NapHit (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: This is excellently done, and very close to FL status. I do have a few quibbles though:
• I'd suggest changing the lede a little; perhaps "the Prussian and later German Imperial Navies" should read "the Prussian Navy, and later the Imperial German Navy".
• "The Prussian Navy acquired three more ships" - sounds like there should be a "had" in there based on the rest of the sentence?
• "The three turret ships of the..." Might want to link turret ship; also, this is a little unclear as to whether it means three ships with turrets or ships with three turrets, can this be tweaked a bit?
• "...the last capital ships ordered from foreign yards." - probably should add "by Germany".
• Arminius: "...designed by the British Royal Navy Captain Cowper Coles" - this is rather awkward, perhaps "Royal Navy" should be dropped?
• Sachsen class: suggest wikilinking boom defense.

- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• • All done, thanks for reviewing the article, Bushranger. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Support, nice work! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Sometimes your footnotes are out of numerical order. Forex, in the first para of the lede.
  • Should be good now.
• Fix caption on SMS Hansa image.
  • Did you just want "line-drawing" hyphenated?
    • No, it's not a compound noun or adjective. Two words please.
      • Fixed.
• Why aren't the costs plural?
  • In the ACR for the heavy cruiser list, MisterBee said Mark doesn't add an "s" to make it plural.
    • That maybe correct for German usage, but I assure you that every American that I encountered when I lived in Germany during the Cold War anglicized mark(s) as they'd do for any English term. Not gonna oppose over this, but "mark" reads as singular, which conflicts with the quantities specified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Fair enough - this is the English wiki afterall.
• Images are appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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