Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German destroyer Z51


 * 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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

German destroyer Z51

 * Nominator(s): 

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)

Comments by AustralianRupert
Support Comments: Not a full review at this stage, just a couple of queries: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC) Continuing review: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Continuing review: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that this article is about the ship, is he single ship table under a title "Ships" necessary? That seems more relevant to a ship-class article
 * I've removed it. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * the infobox seems geared towards the class as well, not a single ship. Should this be adjusted, or is there precedent or his approach?
 * From what I've seen, single ship classes are placed under the name of the single ship, but treated as a class, because theoretically they could have been expanded. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * still not sure I agree with using a class infobox here, instead of a normal ship one, but anyway I will wait to see what others think
 * in the infobox, "50 Mines" --> "50 mines"
 * "concepts made by the Kriegsmarine" --> "concepts produced by the Kriegsmarine"?
 * "concepts made by the Kriegsmarine, as it was the first concept": suggest replacing second "concept" with "design" to reduce repetition
 * "would fall across" --> "fell across"
 * given that there are only four different citations, there doesn't seem much sense in putting them into four different columns as they currently are
 * I believe I have addressed everything. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "would fall across" --> "fell across"
 * given that there are only four different citations, there doesn't seem much sense in putting them into four different columns as they currently are
 * I believe I have addressed everything. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe I have addressed everything. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe I have addressed everything. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Motor Ship": is this a magazine or a journal, as opposed to a book? If so, I suggest either creating a "Magazines" or "Journals" subheader, or changing the "Books" subheader to something more generic, e.g. "Bibliography"
 * I, though not the nominator, changed this to "Works cited". -Indy beetle (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * is there a location of publication for "Koop & Schmolke"?
 * Added. -Indy beetle (talk)


 * "were never installed due to the war" --> "due to the war" seems a bit awkward. Can this be reworded potentially? What about the war prevented them being installed, i.e. was it maybe the diversion of resources away from the surface fleet, or something like that?
 * Seeing as I added that info, I'll just say that that was the wording of the source and I wasn't sure how to adapt it without being untrue to the language.
 * And for the record, seeing as I've involved myself in the improvement of the article and have at the same time given it my support, I offer to recuse myself from formal reviewing (i.e. nullify my support) if the other reviewers deem it the appropriate course of action.-Indy beetle (talk)
 * G'day, Indy, I don't think that is necessary. It is acceptable for reviewers to help out like this. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Hchc2009

 * I felt that the article needed a little bit more polish before A-class.
 * "German destroyer Z51 was the only ship of her class, the Type 1942 destroyer class, built for the Kriegsmarine." - felt reptitious. Could this just be: "The German destroyer Z51 was the only ship of the Kriegsmarine Type 1942 destroyer class."?
 * It feels underlinked - Bremen, for example, or U-Boat, could be usefully linked for the average reader. I'd link diesel propulsion rather than diesel engine, btw.
 * " likely also because diesel fuel was more easily obtainable for Nazi Germany." - as opposed to what other sort of fuel?
 * "Z51 was ordered from Deschimag on 25 November 1942" - worth explaining what Deschimag was (e.g. a company, a location, etc.)
 * Do we know why it took two years for the shipyard not to have completed her? Feels like a long time for the work to have been ongoing.
 * German resources at the time went almost solely to submarines. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "she was hit directly by either one or two bombs; one struck the vicinity of the bulkhead, between compartments X1 and X11, breaking off the fore-end just behind her No. 2 gun pivot. A later bomb hit her aft, fracturing the stern aft " - as written, this seems to be fairly clear that she was hit by two bombs, not one?
 * It is saying that one or two did as mentioned, then another bomb hit, making a possible total of three.
 * "The Type 1942 destroyers were to be..." I'd have preferred this section to be focusing the description on this ship, rather than presented a description of the wider class (accepting that she is the only example). Like Rupert, I'm not certain that the class infobox is ideal here. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is kept for usage in comparing what was changed to the original design. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Believe I have adressed all. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , can you clarify if you are happy with Iazyges' responses here? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Type 1942 destroyers were to be..." I'd have preferred this section to be focusing the description on this ship, rather than presented a description of the wider class (accepting that she is the only example). Like Rupert, I'm not certain that the class infobox is ideal here. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is kept for usage in comparing what was changed to the original design. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Believe I have adressed all. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , can you clarify if you are happy with Iazyges' responses here? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Parsecboy

 * ...destroyer concepts made by the Kriegsmarine, as it was the first concept... "concept" twice in the same sentence is repetitive
 * ...likely also because diesel fuel was more easily obtainable... - this seems dubious. Does Whitley actually say that or are you assuming? Diesel is actually more refined than the fuel oil they were burning in other destroyers.
 * Whitley says: Diesel power was chosen for its ability to confer longer endurances and also, probably, because diesel fuel was more readily obtainable. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The laid down ship was modified heavily from the original design, so as to make it ready for service as quickly as possible. - this makes no sense. Changes during construction slow down construction, they don't speed it up. Even the example given doesn't support this, despite the fact that removing 2 engines seemingly reduces work - but taking that much weight out screws with things like balance, how the ship handles under various conditions, top-heaviness etc., all of which must be dealt with unless you want to launch this.
 * It is meant to convey that the ship was modified before much, if anything, was done. I personally have no idea why they made that call, given that the whole "Lets modify it before we even know" attitude was the reason they had atrocious issues with their navy. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, but that doesn't address my point - you don't bang out a design for a warship of this size in a week, and the kinds of changes made are not small details. Parsecboy (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking again, the "changed heavily from original" seems to be meant to convey the first proposal. I.E. The one they laid down was different than the first proposal significantly. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * although heavily incomplete - "heavily" is not the right adjective here
 * the Deutsches Dampfschiffahrts Hansa referenced in the article is DDG Hansa.
 * The horsepower figure conversion should have the adj=on parameter added.
 * Inconsistent italicization of Kriegsmarine.
 * Just like to point out that Kriegsmarine, as a proper noun, despite being in a foreign language, should probably not be italicised. (see MOS:ITAL). -Indy beetle (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That has more to do with place names than proper names of things like organizations, which are routinely italicized. Parsecboy (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent italicization of Kriegsmarine.
 * Just like to point out that Kriegsmarine, as a proper noun, despite being in a foreign language, should probably not be italicised. (see MOS:ITAL). -Indy beetle (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That has more to do with place names than proper names of things like organizations, which are routinely italicized. Parsecboy (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just like to point out that Kriegsmarine, as a proper noun, despite being in a foreign language, should probably not be italicised. (see MOS:ITAL). -Indy beetle (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That has more to do with place names than proper names of things like organizations, which are routinely italicized. Parsecboy (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What were the differences between A, B, and C? Which design provided the basis for Z51?
 * I added new information I found in the other Whitley book, it should explain which ones were which. The C design was what was ultimately laid down, although with only four engines instead of the eight that it was supposed to have. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can, it'd be ideal to have a table like this one that shows the variants side by side. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Side note on that, were you planning on taking the Ersatz Zenta-class cruiser article to A-Class nom anytime soon? I'd be happy to take it and run it with you if you don't have the time to sole nominate it, but the majority of it is your work, so it's your choice. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  22:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (Not a reping) I have added in a similar table. I only added columns for things I felt I could enter information for for most of the designs, but tell me if you think I should add more. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At some point, perhaps, but it's way down on the priority ladder
 * "a temporal basis" - temporary?
 * I'm just not sure this article has legs for A-class. Unfinished ship projects should usually have a fair bit of context, design history, etc - take a look at Greek battleship Salamis or Dutch 1913 battleship proposal. Granted, those are both capital ships and this is just a destroyer, so they're more likely to attract attention, but that's sort of the point - not all articles can rise above GA. There just isn't material to suitably cover the topic. Parsecboy (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just not sure this article has legs for A-class. Unfinished ship projects should usually have a fair bit of context, design history, etc - take a look at Greek battleship Salamis or Dutch 1913 battleship proposal. Granted, those are both capital ships and this is just a destroyer, so they're more likely to attract attention, but that's sort of the point - not all articles can rise above GA. There just isn't material to suitably cover the topic. Parsecboy (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to do the "death by a million cuts" thing, but I have a couple of other comments:
 * I believe I have addressed everything. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Managed to find significant background detail I had previously missed through sheer blindness. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  07:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One dupe link for MAN SE
 * I'd suggest World War II, not World War Two
 * Also suggest renaming the "Service history" section as "Construction and loss" or something along those lines, since the ship was never completed. Parsecboy (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  20:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A few more nitpicks - if the ship was launched in 1944 to clear the slipway, it would not be accurate to extend the building range to 1945 (unless work was done after the launching, but the welded prop shafts make that seem unlikely).
 * In the lead: Z51 should be italicized, link ship class, fuel oil, ship launching, and substitute slipway for quay, a that word is not accurate.
 * Need to standardize "she" vs. "it" per WP:SHE4SHIPS. Parsecboy (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've left the "it's" in the development section intact, as they were a class design, even if the outcome was singular.
 * How about for U-234? Parsecboy (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Missed the itself, fixed now. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  00:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Parsecboy Done. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , can you clarify if you are happy with Iazyges' responses here? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've left the "it's" in the development section intact, as they were a class design, even if the outcome was singular.
 * How about for U-234? Parsecboy (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Missed the itself, fixed now. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  00:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Parsecboy Done. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , can you clarify if you are happy with Iazyges' responses here? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of "They were to" in the Characteristics section - this makes the wording very repetitious and clunky
 * How many ships were planned? The infobox says 1, but then the Characteristics section talks as if there would be multiple vessels. Parsecboy (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no info on how many were planned, although there's no indication that the Germans intended for her to be a single ship class. I put one on the assumption that planned meant actually ordered/planned to be ordered, rather than a conceptual number. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Might be best to just leave it blank or perhaps "Unknown" - it's unlikely they only planned to build the one, unless she was intended to be a testbed for the diesel engines (which strikes me as unlikely given the war situation - then again, it's the Germans we're talking about). Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to unknown. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Any other comments? Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping - I lost track of this. I think I'm happy to support now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping - I lost track of this. I think I'm happy to support now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Vami_IV
Oppose, Demote to C-class
 * There are no supporting materials on this article, thus failing B-class criteria 5.
 * "B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams." This article has an infobox, thereby fulfilling B5. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The article does not meet B-class criteria 2 for length.
 * B2 has no specified minimum for length. In fact, it only requires that the article "reasonably covers the topic", a statement which doesn't directly address length. -Indy beetle (talk)


 * The article relies on four citations in its entirety, and only three references.
 * That's not a violation of any standards, far as I can remember. Furthermore, demotion to C-class would first require a WP:Good article reassessment to strip the article of its GA status. -Indy beetle (talk)

X – Vami _IV✠  15:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Indy bettle just about covered it. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  01:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Indy beetle

 * I added some info from Koop and Schmolke to make the article more comprehensive. I put it mostly in footnotes so as to not interfere with the article's layout. Feel free to rearrange it.
 * According to Koop and Schmolke (p.21), after a stint of popularity from 1928 until 1935, diesel propulsion fell out of favor with the Kriegsmarine. Interest came back in 1938, though due to the outbreak of World War II Z51 was the only diesel-propelled ship to be ordered from that point. This info seems relevant for inclusion (I would have added it myself, but I wasn't sure how to work it in with the other text). -Indy beetle (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Will work on. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * According to this book, German submarine U-234 attempted to transfer drawings for the Z51 design to Japan for their own naval weapons development. Seems relevant to include in the article. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I couldn't use the book given, since it did not have page numbers, but I found two books from there, and included them. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  02:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My comments have been addressed, and new info has been added to the article, so I support its promotion to A class. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.