Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/German destroyer Z51/archive1

German destroyer Z51

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

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)

Image review
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 &#183; c)  buidhe  16:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * That's good but I believe all permissions have to go through c:COM:VRT (rebranded OTRS team). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

Comments by Indy beetle
Initial comments: -Indy beetle (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * So basically match them in combat? -Indy beetle (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * yes. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * So, problems with the gears working? -Indy beetle (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The number of 5.5 cm guns was increased to three, grouped about the after funnel. The aft funnel?
 * 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)
 * 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)

Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
 * Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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.


 * All issues should be fixed. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  16:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note
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)

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)
 * 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 ✅ and ❌ 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."

Funk

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

Comments by PM
I'll also take a look shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC) 'Lead 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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"?

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)