Talk:Jade-class aircraft carrier

}}

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:
   1. A little background on the two ships would help. What were they doing before they were selected, and how were they acquired?

      They were operating on Norddeutscher Lloyd's East Asia Service - added. As to how, Groner simply states that they were "taken over..." with no indication that there was any compensation to NDL. Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

   2. Why were these two ships selected? It sounds like half of the characteristics of the ships derived from their pre-existing states, not how they were going to be modified.

      Groner doesn't say why - presumably because they were relatively large, sufficiently fast ships. Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

   3. "This was due to the resignation of Admiral Erich Raeder, the commander in chief of the Kriegsmarine, the previous month." - why did this affect things? Was Raeder an outspoken proponent of the conversions or did someone else decide not to pursue them?

      Raeder resigned to protest Hitler's order that the entire German surface fleet be broken up after the Battle of the Barents Sea - added a line to this effect. Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass

5. It is stable:

   Pass

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
   1. It seems that an article like this has a particularly strong need for images, given the unusual nature of the ships or what they were supposed to look like. Are there any diagrams or drawings at least?

   Nothing free use - there's a linedrawing in Groner that would probably fall under fair use. Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Just have a few suggestions, once again trying to get a "bigger picture" view surrounding the project and how it came to be. Otherwise a great article. —Ed!^(talk) 04:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

   I think it's all clear enough now. Passing the GA. —Ed!^(talk) 22:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ships' names

The conversion projects for these two ships were codenamed "Jade" and "Elbe", and the project to convert the cruiser Seydlitz was codenamed "Weser-1". The ships themselves were never renamed. --Cosal (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Evidence, please? As is apparently habit for you, you are making changes to articles without sources. Parsecboy (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For instance: http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/carrier/gneisenau/index.html Gneisenau ==> Projekt Jade; http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/carrier/potsdam/index.html Potsdam ==> Projekt Elbe; http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/carrier/seydlitzcvl/history.html Seydlitz ==> Projekt Weser-1. Please provide evidence that these three ships were actually renamed as you claim (and not simply "Groener"; but edition, language, year of publication, page number.) Your habit, if I may return the compliment, seems to be to simply ignore and revert? --Cosal (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, you present only non-reliable websites as your evidence. And I don't need to provide the information you request, as it is already in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)