Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German destroyer Z39

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

German destroyer Z39 edit

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

German destroyer Z39 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it passed GAN a while back, and I believe it meets the standards for A class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy's Comments edit
  • Have you checked Whitley to see if anything can be added to the article? I don't have the book on hand, but Sturmvogel's articles on German destroyers tend to rely more on Whitley than Koop & Schmolke. I also ought to have a look at Hildebrand to see what, if anything, they can add
    • Had a look at Rohwer, and he offers more details on the minelaying operations in February - April 1944 on pages 306, 311, and 318. Page 337 mentions that the bombers that hit the ship on 23 June were from the Soviet Baltic Fleet Air Force, page 344 mentions the attack on 24 July (actually the night of 23-24 July) was from RAF Bomber Command. Page 410 mentions 2 more destroyers, another torpedo boat, and a couple of other warships also took part in the evacuation to Copenhagen. Page 414 has more details on the 7 May evacuation. This material needs to be incorporated. I'll check Hildebrand later.
      @Parsecboy: Which book is this? Having checked both books (although admittedly only from a snippet view online), I can't seems to find which book. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The book with the page numbers I referenced? That's Rohwer - I believe the book in question is in the further reading section. Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch WP:ENGVAR - convert templates produce UK spellings but "draft"
    • I think since the article started using American spellings, it ought to be standardized that way per WP:RETAIN.
  • Similarly, I see the vessel referred to as "she" and "it" - per WP:SHE4SHIPS, pick one variant and standardize the article
  • A number of things in the infobox are omitted from the description paragraph, including engines, boilers, HP, the 15cm guns
  • Why did she have the Greek coat of arms painted on the turret?
    This one puzzles me, I cannot think of a good reason it does. I'm searching for any reason available, but have not found one yet.
  • One generally refers to them simple as "the Skagerrak" and "the Kattegat", much like one typically just says "the Danube", not "the Danube River"
  • Introduce ships by including their type - ex: what is Z28? Schlesien?
  • Lots of comma overuse
  • I'd link simply to the Oder, not redlink Oder estuary. Parsecboy (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Design section is a bit of a mess - the range figure is repeated, but vastly different figures are given, and neither matches the infobox. I'd recommend splitting the paragraph up and sorting the material. What I generally do is a paragraph on general characteristics, one on the propulsion system, and one on the armament, armor, and radar stuff. Parsecboy (talk)
    checkY
  • Another thing - check the conversion templates - in the infobox, 15cm is correctly given as 5.9in, but in the sentence, it's converted as 6in. Parsecboy (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY

Image is suitably licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: any further comments? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of an aside, but it's not advised to strike reviewers' comments yourself - let them do that. Parsecboy (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parsecboy and Nick-D:: I have not been able to find a place to read the book online, so I ordered the book online; it should arrive within two days, so I'll wait till then. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good to me - if you're planning on doing many articles on WWII ships, it's a fairly irreplaceable resource. Parsecboy (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Parsecboy and Nick-D: I have added in all the details I could find from the book; has this answered your questions? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D's Comments edit

This article is in good shape, but needs some more work for A-class status:

  • The lead is a bit short, and needlessly imprecise
    • This comment still stands - the lead should be about two paras, and provide specifics about the ship's career. Please don't strike other editors' comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • This comment still remains, and I think that it's become more relevant with the impressive expansion of the article. The lead should provide some specifics of the ship's career, not general statements as is the case at present. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nick-D: I have expanded the lead, adding several specifics; is there anything else? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 'Design and armament' section, it would be helpful to note if the ship had the same design as the rest of her class, or any modifications

*:I know that she was modified at one point, I just cannot find exact details on what was modified; most likely her 15 cm guns, as her class, the Type 1936A (Mob), is noted as having none of these in general, by one of the sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She had the Greek coat of arms on either side of her 15-centimetre (6 in) twin turret" - why was this painted on?
    Again, I have little to no idea. I'm searching for a source, but have not found it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did it take so long to complete the ship?
    I don't know; this seems to indicate that Z39's building time was typical for her class.
    The piece I've found about her being modified would certainly explain the long time for her being fully operational, if her plans were changed mid-building. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she began patrolling the Skagerrak, and the Kattegat" - did she really 'patrol'? I believe that aircraft and submarines were used for this purpose, with destroyers being used as escorts and strike ships
    Source isn't super specific; I'll look into it.
    I've changed it to "mine-laying operations" as this is more correct. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 23 June of the same year, she was damaged by bombs while moored off of Paldiski" - which force dropped the bombs?
    This isn't mentioned, but it is very easy to assume British; will look into finding a ref for this though. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that this took place in Estonia, the attackers were almost certainly Soviet Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comments above, Nick - Rohwer confirms it was a Soviet attack. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While at port in Kiel, on 24 July, she was hit by a bomb" - as above. Also, did her crew suffer any casualties in these attacks?
    Not mentioned, will look into. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not addressed: this would have been a raid by the western Allies. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto as above - this was a Bomber Command raid. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was the ship sent to Kiel for repairs for bomb damage, only to be sent elsewhere after being bombed again?
    Not mentioned, but presumably higher-priority ships had been damaged in this bombing raid, so she was sent to a lesser repair station. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the severity of damage the reason it took so long to repair the ship, or was this due to other causes? (eg, repairing destroyers being a low priority given Germany's disastrous situation)
    Not mentioned, but likely low priority. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Why did the ship end up with the US Navy? Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm very pleased to support this article's promotion. Great work with it Iazyges Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert's Comments edit

Support: G'day, nice work. I'm strictly land-based myself, but I had a look anyway. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • the lead could probably be expanded to very briefly summarise the construction, launching dates etc. (A single sentence probably would be sufficient, e.g. "Laid down in August 1940, Z39 was completed three years later. She subsequently spent the rest of the war escorting transports in the Baltic...etc"
    checkY
  • in the lead, remove the link and name "Nazi Navy": Kriegsmarine is already linked and is probably sufficient as a term by itself (i.e. I don't think Nazi Navy is a proper noun)
    checkY
  • suggest turning the Design and armament section into two paragraphs for readability. I'd suggest probably splitting it after "...15-centimetre (6 in) twin turrent.[5]"
    checkY
  • watch out for overlink, the duplicate link checker tool identifies the following: 2 cm Flak 30/38, 3.7cm SK C/30, Kiel,
     Done
  • in the infobox, in the fate field, should it also mention the transfer to France?
    checkY I've made a "career" piece for all three of her owners.
  • inconsistent: "standard displacement of 2,600 tonnes (2,600 long tons; 2,900 short tons), and 3,597 tonnes (3,540 long tons; 3,965 short tons) at full load" (body of the article) v "Displacement: 2,519 long tons (2,559 t) (standard); 3,691 long tons (3,750 t) deep load" (infobox)
    checkY. The reason for the many inconsistencies comes from my originally using a source that gave an average for the class, before switching to a source that gave specific data. The old data got left behind in the infobox somehow. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to 2 sets of Wagner geared..." --> "to two sets of Wagner geared.."
    checkY
  • inconsistent: "top speed of 38.5 knots (71.3 km/h; 44.3 mph)" (body of the article) v. "Speed: 36 knots (67 km/h; 41 mph)" (infobox)
    checkY
  • inconsistent: "She had a range of 2,239 nautical miles (4,147 km; 2,577 mi)..." (body of article) v. "2,950 nmi (5,460 km; 3,390 mi)"
    checkY
  • "alongside German destroyers Z35, Z28, and Z35" (Z35 is mentioned twice here)
    checkY Was meant to be 25, not 35.
  • "bring her up to 'Barbara standards...": the MOS prefers double quote marks. Also, is there a link that can be used to explain what "Barbara" refers to?
    checkY. I have not found one in-wiki, but this website says it was her having AA guns added. I'm not sure if it would be considered a reliable enough source for an A-class however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, some works have publishing locations and some don't, e.g. compare Bauer with Both
    checkY
  • @AustralianRupert: I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/German_destroyer_Z39&oldid=795770572"