Talk:SMS Berlin/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 16:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this soon. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Licensing tag with [1]

It's licensed under CC-BY-SA from the Bundesarchiv, it's all ok.

No, I meant the public domain US tag. The one from before I pointed out about just realizing it. Though I guess it could be fine either way as part of the project.... Nevermind, I'll just shut up about it before I look stupid. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, it's not PD in the US - that's the problem with Willy Stower's paintings. He died in 1931, so his work in PD in the country of origin (Germany), but it was still under copyright in 1996, when the URAA went into effect, so the copyright was extended in the US to "year of publication+95". The date is chopped off the bottom, but if we could track down the year he painted it, we might be able to determine when it would enter the PD, but at very earliest (assuming it was published after the 1 January 1923 cutoff), it wouldn't enter the PD in the US until 2018.

"Berlin was among the six light cruisers Germany was permitted to retain by the Treaty of Versailles." Purely speculative here, but since I did all the Gazelle class. What were the ships by name that were retained by the German military? I also thought they were allowed 2 in reserve according to the 1921 stipulation. Though with the Gazelle class and these one so far... how did Germany have and all of these?

There were six Gazelles (Niobe, Nymphe, Thetis, Arcona, Medusa, and Amazone) and two Bremens (this one and Hamburg). And yes, the Germans were permitted to have six on active duty and two reserve cruisers. They weren't all on active duty all the time, to stay within the constraints of the treaty, but the situation was eased someone with the sale of Niobe in 1925. Parsecboy (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You should note that at the Treaty itself as a footnote. It would be far better then every other online source I see which lists them as 6 cruisers. Even Wikisource doesn't make mention of it. Though the 2 reserve, was that from the 1921 matter? I'm a bit confused on the history. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the two in reserve comes from the Reichswehr law on 1 January 1921. Do you mean at Wikisource or here at Treaty of Versailles? I added a note on this article explaining the issue.

"That year, Wilhelm Canaris was assigned to the ship, which went to Norway in November 1923. " "While on the cruise, he met a naval cadet by the name of Reinhard Heydrich, who went on to become a close friend and eventual architect of The Holocaust.[9][10]" Not sure why these two sentences interrupt the flow of the ship's service history. If they have to be mentioned I'd mention that during this trip both were present, but I really do not see how the friendship of the two men is related to the service history...

It's just a tidbit on some important figures who served on the ship, and the ship's role in bringing them together. Noting future admirals or otherwise notable individuals who served on a ship is fairly common, especially for ships that operated as training cruisers (for instance, many of the Victoria Louise class cruisers mention famous cadets that served aboard them, like Doenitz, Luetjens, Lindemann, etc.) Parsecboy (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

True, its just that it jumped out at me the way it was worded...

Other then that it is fine. On hold for fixes and that question. P.S. I'm not sure a layman would understand 'Ersatz' so that should be noted.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Added a link to Ersatz (I usually do, don't know why I forgot on this one). Parsecboy (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hehe. I'm a good set of eyes I guess. I'll probably mull the sentences over once more and pass it tomorrow, if I find a better wording I'll replace it. If I don't, I'll leave it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks good, the copyright matter I think is skirted because it is used with permission and provided to Wikipedia. "This image was provided to Wikimedia Commons by the German Federal Archive (Deutsches Bundesarchiv) as part of a cooperation project." Which states that while it is not a public domain image, it is used with permission. I'll go ahead and pass this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)