Talk:German destroyer Z6 Theodor Riedel/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 16:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be using Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert; Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1990). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe. Biographien - ein Spiegel der Marinegeschichte von 1815 bis zur Gegenwart. (10 Bände) (in German). Mundus Verlag. Volume 7 as a source for my review comments. The history of Z6 is covered in this book on pages 213 to 215. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Length according to HRS 121m
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	great article

The ship's bow was rebuilt to that length sometime before the start of the war. I've updated the Z5 and Z6 articles to reflect this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, should this also be reflected in the infobox? Why 120m and not 121m? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I set up the infobox to reflect their specs as built. And I have no idea why HRS says 121 when Gröner says built 119, modified 120; the drawing of the ship in the latter shows barely any discernible increase in the shape of the bow, so I doubt that it was really 121 meters.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some ships of the 1934A class had a different bow - Z5 for example, is reported with 121 m Meters in 1945 and a very different shape [1] than Z6 Riedel. So the data may just have been mixed up in those publications. I think 119 meters is a good choice for this article. Alexpl (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fair MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]