Talk:German destroyer Z13 Erich Koellner/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 11:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
If you don't mind I will do the review based on Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert; Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe. Vol. 3. Ratingen: Mundus Verlag. ASIN B003VHSRKE. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry to complain about this but have a look at the following sentence "Shortly before dawn on 10 April, the five destroyers of the British 2nd Destroyer Flotilla surprised the German ships in Narvik harbor. They torpedoed two destroyers and badly damaged the other three while suffering only minor damage themselves. As they were beginning to withdraw they encountered the three destroyers of the 4th Flotilla which had been alerted when the British began their attack." The 4th Flotilla was a German unit the 2nd Flotilla a British unit, I wish that the distinction of who was German and who was British became a bit more visible. Parsec, in his WWI articles, uses Roman Numerals for German units, I think this helps.
- That's a good point and I've added "German" to the second mention of 4th Flotilla to clarify things. I'm reluctant to use roman numerals like Parsecboy does, because that's not what the Germans used at this level. As you probably know the Germans alternated usage of Arabic and Roman numerals for their unit designations at higher levels, but used Roman numbers exclusively at low levels. Forex II. Aufklarüngsgruppe, but 3. Torpedoboot Flotille (I'm blanking on the exact terminology for a WWI torpedo-boat flotilla, but you know what I mean).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ping--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's a good point and I've added "German" to the second mention of 4th Flotilla to clarify things. I'm reluctant to use roman numerals like Parsecboy does, because that's not what the Germans used at this level. As you probably know the Germans alternated usage of Arabic and Roman numerals for their unit designations at higher levels, but used Roman numbers exclusively at low levels. Forex II. Aufklarüngsgruppe, but 3. Torpedoboot Flotille (I'm blanking on the exact terminology for a WWI torpedo-boat flotilla, but you know what I mean).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- the ship was raised in 1963 and scrapped HRS p. 68.
- 31 killed (matches) plus 14 with heavy wounds and 20 with light wounds HRS p. 69.
- "two men swept overboard" HRS p. 69. states one swept overboard, two heavy wounds
- "Koellner lost one man overboard while attempting to rescue sailors from the two sunken ships" HRS p. 69. states that 24 were saved
- All done, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)