Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Prinz Adalbert-class cruiser

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Here's the next article in the series (now I just need to start pushing them through FAC too)! Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

The astonishingly-large number of portholes in the ships certainly help to explain their unhappy wartime history! I'd like to offer the following comments:

"was a group of two" - "was a pair of" perhaps?
- Works for me
There's a bit of repetition in the lead
- I'm guessing you're referring to the "their"s in the first paragraph? That's been reworded
"The operation proceeded as planned, however," - perhaps tweak this to "The remainder of the operation proceeded as planned, however," or similar?
- Good idea
Did E9's attack cause any casualties?
- Yes, added
Do we know how many torpedoes hit Prinz Adalbert in the fatal attack? The current text implies that all of the torpedoes that were fired hit the ship.
- I'll have to do some digging on this point
Have any experts commented on this design? The loss of both ships suggests they were not fit for purpose as large combat vessels. Was this the result of them being optimised for colonial service but ending up being used against the British? Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some criticisms from Lyon, which I had forgot to consult. As to their loss, poor underwater protection was very common in the pre-dreadnought era (as evidenced by the Action of 22 September 1914, SMS Pommern's loss at Jutland, etc.). Thanks Nick! Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

Is there a reason for having Prinz Adalbert's speed in the infobox rather than Friedrich Karl's?
- I typically use the lead ship's stats for the box (though occasionally there are exceptions, like Deutschland-class battleship, where the lead ship differed from the other 4, which were all identical)
Are you using "German Navy" or "Kaiserliche Marine"? Right now you use both (and both "German Navy" and "German navy")
- Should be standardized now
"operations with the fleet as well" Clarify which fleet?
- Good idea
I've been asked to do this at FAC before so would like your opinion on adding a sentence to provide a generic description of what an armoured cruiser actually is
- I think an explanatory note makes sense (and I should probably copy over to other articles in this series)
Link Scharnhorst and Gneisenau
- Good catch
You say "a number of defects" but only describe one
- There are 2 there - poor armor protection and casemate guns too low
Link beam and draft
- Good catch, not sure how I forgot those
Move flagship link to first mention
- Done
"These guns were provided..." This sentence and the next both begin "These guns" and the next "The guns" which makes for awkward reading
- Reworded
I expect this is an obvious point, but is it possible to note whether the torpedo tubes were fixed?
- I'd assume yes, but Groner doesn't specifically say (nor does Dodson or Lyon)
In my opinion the images would be better used if the Friedrich Carl early career photo was moved to where the line drawing is, and that is in turn moved to the armor section, although that might require the splitting of that section
- Swapped
Is it possible to say where exactly the two conning towers were? You mention them in relation to the positioning of guns and their own armor, but it isn't too easy to understand where we're talking about
- Added a line
I realise this is mentioned in the individual articles, but your opinion on adding the ship namesakes here as well?
- We can do that
The Friedrich Carl article says she was laid down in August 1901, not August 1900
- Good catch
Link commissioning
- Done
"Cruiser Division of the Baltic Sea" is this a title by itself or should this be the Baltic Sea Fleet or similar?
- That's the unit title - translated of course
"managed to keep the cruiser afloat long enough" While I realise this is mentioned in the proceeding paragraph it would be useful to specifically mention that she sinks here
- Done
"1 July 1915" Repeated year not needed
- Removed
Where was Prinz Adalbert sailing and/or sailing to when she was torpedoed?
- Clarified
"September 1915" Repeated year
- Removed
Link destroyers
- Done
Out of interest, is there any coverage on the two wrecks? I wondered whether there's been any salvage or similar
- Nothing I've been able to find - they're not mentioned in Dodson & Cant's book on postwar fates of the Central and Axis powers of the world wars. I did track down this, which has a photo of the wreck, but not much else to note
"a pair of two armored cruisers" > "a pair of armored cruisers"
- Just a wee bit redundant, eh?
Lede says they were built under the Second Naval Law, while main text only mentions the First Naval Law
- First is correct - the Second went into effect after Prinz Adalbert was laid down
Is it the "cruiser squadron" or "Cruiser Division"? Differs between lede and main text
- Division is correct
"Six-hundred and seventy-two men were killed" Suggest not spelling out the number here, as you do in main text
- Done

@Parsecboy: Hi, that's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]