Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/German destroyer Z39/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2017.

German destroyer Z39

 * Nominator(s): Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a German destroyer made under Plan Z, which served two years in the Kriegsmarine, before being used for experiments by the US, and later as a pontoon by France. I believe it meets all the criteria, even though it is a bit short for a FAC article. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  21:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

 * There is one Z39 image in the article. It is well-relevant, has no copyright issues, ALT text, and no issues whatsoever. It is good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review = spotchecks not done
 * Further reading should be a separate section
 * Ordered date differs between infobox and text, and for a couple of other dates the text is unclear - captured, and commissioned by the French. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have removed the unclear dates, as its not clear that they were actually done on those dates. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any further comments? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, sourcing otherwise looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, sourcing otherwise looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert
G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC) ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅, I believe I have changed all to British spelling. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  13:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC) ✅
 * the yard number "G629" is not mentioned in the body and is therefore uncited in the infobox
 * "After the modifications, she carried 14 2 cm" --> "After the modifications, she carried fourteen 2 cm" (to aid readability)
 * "between 13–26 April" --> "between 13 and 26 April" per MOS:DASH (please check for similar constructions)
 * same as above with "from 13–14 April" --> "from 13 to 14 April"
 * "British Air Force" --> "British Royal Air Force" (proper name) or "British air force" (common name)
 * there is a mixture of British and US English spelling, for instance "Draught" and "Harbor"
 * "where Schlesien was deliberately grounded her" (typo: "her")
 * I believe I have done all you have suggested; do you have any further comments/suggestions? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  13:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ranger Steve
Sorry, but it's an oppose from me. Additionally, and I know this will appear harsh, but I'd suggest considering withdrawing this nomination so that it can be improved. I only say this because I feel it is far from complete and FAs aren't the place to make major changes. What's there is good, but what's missing is, in my opinion, quite a lot.

My principal problem is that this article is far too brief in its coverage. You mention above that the destroyer was part of Plan Z, but even that isn't in the article. Per the FA criteria, specifically 1B (comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context), I would expect to see a comprehensive background section. This would obviously include a summary of summary of Plan Z, but I would also expect to see some information on German destroyer use prior to Z39's commissioning and their high attrition rates. The cause of the lengthy construction times is relevant as well, as it is alluded to briefly in the article, but not explained. By the time Z39 entered service, fuel shortages were acute and training was poor (Z39's crew even took training voyages to teach seamanship in Jan '45); these are factors I'd expect to see in more detail in the service history section. Additionally, the impact of these factors and the course of the war in the Baltic and how they ultimately affected the employment of the destroyers (ie. how Z39 came to be principally a minelayer and not a combat vessel) should be in there for context. Somewhere, Project Barbara should be explained as well; why it was felt necessary and the extent of modifications made (Z39 received a full Barbara refit, others did not). Although there's plenty of detail about the voyages made in support of Operation Hannibal, there's no explanation of the evacuation of East Prussia and Courland - not even a link to the articles.

I'm also concerned that, partially through this lack of context, the service history reads as a list of short sentences listing dates and summary events. This is particularly true here: "On 25 March, Z39 finished repairs, while in Swinemünde, and resumed operations on 1 April. From 5 April to 7 April, she escorted transports and parts of Task Force Thiele around the Bay of Danzig.[18] From 8 April to 9 April, she provided naval gunfire support for the German army.[24] On 10 April she and T33 escorted the German destroyer Z43, which had sustained damage from both mines and bombs,[25] to Warnemünde and Swinemünde.[26] On 15 April German destroyers Z5, Z34, and Z39, German minelayers T23, T28, T33, and T36 escort German steamships Matthias Stinnes, Eberhart Essberger, Pretoria and Askari to Copenhagen, with a total of 20,000 refugees.[25] On 2 May she shelled Soviet Army forces from the Oder estuary. On 3 May she, alongside the battleship Schlesien, moved to protect the bridge across the Peene river at Wolgast." For this reason I feel it fails FA Criteria 1A.

I'm sorry, I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult, but you're right, this is short for an FAC and I feel that's because so much is missing that could and should be there. Regards Ranger Steve   Talk  18:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look into this, and see how hard it would be to fix what you've said. If it looks like it will take a long time; I'll withdraw it. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: This has been open for 6 weeks now, and there is an oppose outstanding and no support for promotion. As the nominator has not responded since 23 September, I think we have little choice but to archive this. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period, but I would recommend working with Ranger Steve in that time to address the concerns brought up here. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.