Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German destroyer Z31

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 Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

German destroyer Z31[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk), Nigel Ish (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a good article, and part of a series I'm working on. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I made a few tweaks, and have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the dates of ordering and launching are inconsistent between the infobox and the body of the article
I've fixed the body date by explaining that they were actually ordered on 19 September 1939. Discrepancy comes from them being cancelled and re-ordered. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Scrapped early 1960's" --> "Scrapped early 1960s"
Done
the article has a mixture of British and US English, e.g. "draft" (US) but also "draught" and "harbour" etc (British)
Done
"Eight 533mm": should have a non breaking space after the numerals
Done
inconsistent: "Eight 533mm" (body) v. "53.3 cm" (infobox)
Done
inconsistent: "20 mm guns" (body) v. "2 cm" (infobox)
Done
suggest mentioning war reparations specifically in the French service section in the body of the article
Done
in French service, do we know what tasks the destroyer undertook, or where it operated?
Done
suggest adding a caption to the image in the infobox to make it clear it is of the ship in French service
Done
for the Groner source, suggest adding a translation for the title
Done

@AustralianRupert: I believe I have done all that you have asked. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Support from Vami_IV

This article's organization into sections seems weird to me and is very short. Consider:
- Breaking "Construction and design" down into a paragraph detailing its design, and a subsection for its construction.
  - Rename to "Design and construction"?
  - Done
- Breaking "Kriegsmarine service" down into "World War II" and "Later war," both subsections
  Dubious as to usefulness of this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is lacking in photographs and supporting material as a whole, in violation of of B-class Criterion #5.
- Consider adding a table to "Construction and design" detailing Z31's designed stats and a note or two on any design changes and/or modifications made at a later date.
- Consider adding an image of the location of construction to section "Construction and design."
Otherwise, I support this article. All harvids work and the article is lush with citations.

X –Vami _IV✠ 13:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Vami, to clarify the article has both an infobox and image, which more than satisfies the B5 criterion. It also satisfies the A-class criteria, which only requires some sort of supporting materials where relevant, without quantifying how many examples are required. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

"On 28 June 1939, orders for nine destroyers (Z31–Z39) of the new Type 1938B class were placed" by Germany
Done
Any info on the strategic reasons for ordering the ship? Fleet expansion program, replacing older ships?
I've added in info on it; was a part of Plan Z. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Kriegsmarine service" and "French service" - for purposes of NPOV, should either change the former to "German service" or the latter to "Marine Nationale service".
Done
"the ship underwent a lengthy work up process". What is meant by "work up process"?
I've added a link to wiktionary. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"After commissioning...After being damaged" Mix it up.
Done

-Indy beetle (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: Believe I have addressed all of your comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been addressed. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2018 (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.