Talk:Nautilus-class minelayer

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Nautilus class minelayer. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Nautilus class cruiser → Nautilus class minelaying cruiser – I'm not sure what the original German is, but the reference used in the article describes them as minelayers, not cruisers. That said, "cruiser" does seem to be used extensively - although most (all?) of these appear to be Wikimirrors or use Wikipedia as a source. So the compromise is suggested here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - per WP:SHIPS naming conventions, we shouldn't use too-specific ship types (thus, Graudenz class cruiser, not Graudenz class light cruiser), so the proposed name is out. However, Conway's 1906-1921 lists them as minelayers, and Groner's German Warships doesn't include them in the first volume with the cruisers, which leads me to conclude they're in the second volume (which I do not posess) that covers minelayers and other miscellaneous craft. FWIW, according to Conway's, they were designed as "Minendampfer" A and B, which translates roughly as "mine steamer". Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Nautilus class minelayer" perhaps then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That's probably the best option - these ships were armed with only 8.8cm guns and were not particularly fast, which would make it hard to justify them being called cruisers. They were also almost half the size of the previous class of German cruisers, another mark against them. And in my own interest, it makes this slightly easier ;) Parsecboy (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nautilus-class minelayer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 16:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well-written:

With a few minor grammatical tweaks made, the article complies with MOS policies on grammar, as well as general layout/structure. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article cites several reputable publications; no signs of original research. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article sufficiently covers all relevant aspects of its topic. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article maintains an unbiased approach to its topic. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article has not been subjected to edit-warring or similar disruptions for at least five years, based on an initial view of the revision history. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

All images used in the article are freely licensed, so do not violate copyright in any way. All are relevant to the article, and are appropriately captioned. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article qualifies as GA. Congratulations! Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)