Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German destroyer Z3 Max Schultz

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 08:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

German destroyer Z3 Max Schultz[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

German destroyer Z3 Max Schultz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a GA article, and I believe that it meets the criteria for A-class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Image is appropriately licensed but could use a caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done

Support Comments by auntieruth[edit]

  • Again, quite interesting read, especially in parallel with the Maass....it has the same problems as Maass, though: lead too short, not enough broader information in it, choppiness of text, and was this another ship built in contravention of Versailles Treat, etc. auntieruth (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments/queries:

  • in the lead, it isn't necessary to include "The German destroyer", and it creates a bit of redundancy of the word "destroyer". I would just start it as "Z3 Max Schultz was..."
  •  Done
  • might be worth adding the number of fatalities in the accident to the lead
  •  Done
  • it seems from the body that the cause of the sinking of both ships is a bit contested, worth mentioning both potential causes in the lead
  •  Done
  • worth mentioning in the lead the number of sailors lost in her sinking
  •  Done
  • conversion rounding of the 2 cm guns isn't consistent between the body and infobox
  •  Done
  • where were the TT located?
  •  Done
  • Fleet review redirects to the Commonwealth one, seems incongruous.
    There is no article for German Fleet review, or general fleet review, so its the nearest one. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her sisters Z1 Leberecht Maass" etc, as the ZX are part of the names, aren't they? Perhaps be consistent through the article with it?
  •  Done
  • link Kampfgeschwader 26
  •  Done
  • the whole explanation about her fate and that of Z1 should probably be less definite given post-war research, eg "En route, the flotilla was apparently attacked"
  •  Done
  • you could get rid of some whitespace by adjusting the Notes to 20em
  •  Done
  • the sources are all reliable and properly formatted.

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

  • The caption of the infobox photo reads "Z3 Max Schultz at sea". It would actually appear that the ship is in port, especially considering that the smoke in the photograph is coming from some tower in the background and not from the ships funnels.
  • The lead explains the debate surrounding the circumstances of the ships' sinking, but the infobox does not. Suggest adding an "or by aircraft" or other brief explanation. If it is that much more likely that the court of inquiry was wrong, then alter the statement "Z3 Max Schultz was either bombed and sunk by a patrolling German bomber, or struck a British mine" to reflect that the former is unlikely. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the infobox is supposed to be only a summary, I think it would be best not to assign any cause at all, rather than try and compress the multiple possibilities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Kriegsmarine now expected it to serve as a small cruiser". The "now" is unnecessary.
    • The "now" reflects that the continual growth in the design as the Kriegsmarine changed its requirements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only real innovative part of the design, the high-pressure boilers, were an over-complicated design". Redundant, also the switch between the plural boilers and singular design is grammatically risky. I suggest revision.
  • "A pair of reload torpedoes were provided". Again the singular and plural mixing, as the singular word "pair" is the subject and its verb "were" is plural.
    • The immediately preceding word is plural, so "were" is the only valid choice in AmEng, perhaps not for BritEng as they handle collective plurals differently (in strange and baffling ways that I have yet to fully figure out.)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's grammatically incorrect in American English. What matters is the subject, not the immediate preceding word. "Pair", the subject, is a collective noun, but it is singular nonetheless (hence "a pair"). A person should not say "A pair were provided" but instead "A pair was provided". I double checked this revision with an (American) English teacher today. -Indy beetle (talk)
        • Maybe this is one of those "evolving language" things, but were still seems OK. Nonethless, I've changed it in all 4 of the Type 34-class articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have her bow rebuilt to reduce the amount of water that came over the bow". Redundant, suggest changing the second bow to "it".
  • "escorted Adolf Hitler aboard the pocket battleship Deutschland to occupy Memel". Wikilink Memel to Klaipėda Region for context.
  • Per MOS:SEASON seasons should not be capitalized.
  • "Postwar research revealed that one or both ships struck a British minefield". In the event it was only one ship, is there anyone it would be (which was more likely to have been sunk by mine)?
    • Z1 Leberecht Maass is the only other ship mentioned to have been sunk at that time, so who else could it be?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "One or both" is ambiguous. Is that deliberate? For example, did the investigators conclude that Z3 was certainly sunk by mine, and that Z1 may have been sunk by one? Or have they only decided that "Well, at least one of these ships was sunk by mine, maybe both. If it was only one, we don't know which it would be." - Indy beetle (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very deliberate. About the only thing that the sources agree upon is that Z1 was struck by at least one bomb that may or may have not sunk her. The Kriegsmarine concluded that bombs sank Z1 and Z3, but most everybody else says that Z3 struck a mine, possibly having been hit by a bomb and that Z1 may have struck a mine as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a friendly note, I would encourage you to perhaps think it over before putting any more articles through the review process. My comments on the Z31 A-class review were made on 2 January and have not been addressed. With the six you have in the queue, I hope you aren't biting off more than you can chew.

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on waiting for this round to finish, before nominating German destroyer Z5 Paul Jacobi, then taking whatever is said in those articles and applying it to Z6–16, then nominating them in groups of about four. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also on Z31, I just did not see that it was posted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked recently, but I'm not at all sure that Z5 and the later ones are ready for ACR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also recommend caution here. There is a finite capacity for reviewers within our ACR process, and nominating a large number of the same type of article at the same time can result in overloading the system. This can negatively impact upon our throughput as it will make it difficult to achieve a quorum and inevitably reviews will go stale (which wastes our reviewers' time), while other nominators may feel that the process is being diverted to a single line-of-effort. Of course, there are no formal limits, but I would recommend that probably no more than two or three of the same type of article should appear at ACR at any one time. Just my opinion, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support this article's promotion to A-class. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:57, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/German_destroyer_Z3_Max_Schultz&oldid=1143876861"