Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/German destroyer Z51/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 3 November 2021 [1].

German destroyer Z51 edit

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a planned class of Destroyers for Nazi Germany. Notably, the first to use diesel engines. After a long period of development, including four different models, only one was built, and launched unfinished to make room for submarine construction near the end of the war. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

None used. I believe that if there are no free images, it would be possible to use a non-free image to illustrate the subject. (t · c) buidhe 16:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I have reached out to the owner of www.german-navy.de to ask for permission to use the image of the ship from their page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's good but I believe all permissions have to go through c:COM:VRT (rebranded OTRS team). (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given it is a unique ship, I suggest that a strong NFUR would suffice. See File:Torpedo boat tc 1.jpg for an example. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indy beetle edit

Initial comments:

At first, these changes were made with the goal of being able to match or exceed French and Polish destroyers, but later it was necessary that these destroyers be able to match British destroyers . Match in what respect? Displacement? Speed?
From memory, the source isn't super clear but I believe the general gist is that a German destroyer should have a 50-50 shot at defeating a British destroyer in a one-on-one, and should always win against French and Polish destroyers. I'll check again. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So basically match them in combat? -Indy beetle (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: yes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe add that then and that will be more clear, if the sources say so explicitly. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: I have explained the concept further by adding in Koop and Smcholke; while Whitley provides they should be able to match, Koop and Smcholke directly comment on the jump in displacement. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The motors encountered initial problems with teething Is there a Wikilink which could explain the teething concept?
Need to review the source, as I look at it its possible I misunderstood the "teething problem" metaphor as a literal problem with the motors teething. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - So, problems with the gears working? -Indy beetle (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indy beetle: While searching for a link I came across the idiom of "teething problems", similar to "growing pains", to describe initial issues in new developments, which had me concerned I had misunderstood the source and taken it as a literal issue with the teeth of the motor when the authors were using the idiom and the actual motor teeth may not have been the source of the problem. Looking at the source it describes "initial teething problems", so I believe it was a literal issue of the teeth lining up with each other, as it makes little sense to put initial and teething right next to each other, especially when talking about something that actually has teeth. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The number of 5.5 cm guns was increased to three, grouped about the after funnel. The aft funnel?
Done
However, Germany surrendered on 8 May 1945, before U-234 could reach its target, and she therefore surrendered herself to USS Sutton, in the western Atlantic, on 14 May 1945. Were the schematics handed over the Allies or were they destroyed before the surrender?
Source doesn't cover it but I doubt the Germans had the presence of mind (or interest) to destroy the plans. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How are you ordering Works cited?
Fixed; I'm treating Motor Ships as if the first letter of the title (n) was the first letter of an authors name, other alphabetical issues resolved.
Don't use postal abbreviations, per MOS:POSTABBR
Fixed.
Motor Ship link gives a different publisher than indicated here. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed OCLC; WorldCat gives the publisher as Temple Press, whereas Google Books gives it as the industrial press. I'm inclined to side with WorldCat, unless there are objections.

@Nikkimaria: All issues should be fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

Seventeen in and little sign of a consensus to promote forming. If this doesn't improve considerably by the three week mark I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see a little further interest being attracted. Per the FAC instructions
Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.
I would be grateful if you could remove the tick graphics. They contribute to overloading the system and causing transclusions to drop off the bottom of the list. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

I'll have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No relevant images? Schematics, similar ships, people mentioned, etc.?

Comments by PM edit

I'll also take a look shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC) 'Lead[reply]

suggest "Z51 was the only destroyer of the Type 1942 class built for the Kriegsmarine during World War II.
done
"the first destroyer designed or built by the Kriegsmarine to use diesel fuel" was it "the first" or "the only"?
done

Body

"During the Interbellum, the period between the first and second world wars"→"During the interwar period"
done
"The displacements of all German ships at the time were purposefully understated to have their official sizes comply with the treaty. At first, these changes were made with the goal of being able to match or exceed French and Polish destroyers, but later it was necessary that these destroyers be able to match British destroyers, a much more difficult goal" this segues weirdly between "all ships" and "destroyers"
done
link destroyer at first mention in the body
done
this begs the question of why matching British destroyers was a much more difficult goal
I'll have to check sources but I don't think Whitley explains in the same section why; will look for it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "a policy of heavily arming her destroyers"
done
link light cruiser
done
link seaworthiness
done
suggest "and their fire control was inferior."
done
suggest "the two countries had combined totals of:"
done
suggest "could not directly threaten the British Royal Navy"
done
link torpedo boat and then torpedo
done
link anti-submarine warfare
done
link Screening (tactical)
done
link submarines
done
I don't understand what "However, there was an increased desire to introduce anti-aircraft measures to the destroyers, although many nations struggled to do so effectively" means
I've dropped the "however"; a lot of the nations wanted to make destroyers better at fighting off airplanes, but they struggled to do so. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does "Germany relied on a massive fleet of trawlers that had been requisitioned and refitted as minelayers instead" mean that the Germans used minelaying trawlers as sub chasers, or that they relied on mine laying to counter submarines? It is currently confusing.
I'll need to double check sources for this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"from enemy ~~planes~~aircraft" just a bit informal
done
move the link to Kriegsmarine to first mention in the body
done
"The motors had initial teething problems"
done
"any research" funding?
done
"that the Kriegsmarine renewed its interest in diesel propulsion"
done
the level of detail in the Diesel engines section is excessive IMHO. All that is needed is the type of engine (V24), configuration, and max output.
I would agree but for the fact that it was the only diesel ship, I am open to trimming it if that is consensus, however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
link Drive shaft
done
consistency re: subdesign and sub-design
done
how were the guns of the original design configured? two single superfiring guns fore and aft or one double turret fore and aft?
done
what were the criticisms of the original design?
Will consult sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
swap the FdZ link to Type commander (Kriegsmarine)#Destroyers and briefly explain what it was
done
link Bow (watercraft)
done
what model of 12.7 cm gun was originally intended to be fitted?
is Naval Group North the same as Marineoberkommando der Nordsee? In which case it would roughly translate as Naval Region North Sea. A possible link would be Naval regions and districts of the Kriegsmarine#Naval Region North Sea
move the link to Anti-aircraft warfare to first mention in the body
done
what do tri-axial and bi-axial mean in this context?
link Director (military) and rangefinder
done
link Gun stabilizer
done
watch your engvar, I see defense but centimetres
done
"flak"→"anti-aircraft"
done
first mention of LM/44 2 cm (0.79 in) twin mounted AA guns, but they are being replaced. Needs to be rewritten.
also, I thought the LM 44 was a mount, not a gun
what model were the 3 cm (1.2 in) twin mount AA guns supposed to be? I only know of the experimental 3 cm MK 303 Flak
similar questions about the 5.5 cm (2.2 in) Gerät 58, were any actually made?
"at this conference, it"→"It"
done
link torpedo tube
done
suggest "with one set forward and one abaft of the second funnel"
done
who were "the other groups"?

Down to Designs, more to come. I have to say that at this stage, the article is definitely not close to FA. I feel like the whole subdesign section needs a fair bit of work, and possibly division into subsections for each subdesign as well as tightened up descriptions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges, I'm sorry, but I'll be having to archive this one now. With no traction having been gained three weeks in and the suggestion that it needs significant work, it looks like this one will be best worked up for a second FAC. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.