Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German destroyer Z2 Georg Thiele

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) 06:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

German destroyer Z2 Georg Thiele

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

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

File:Leberecht_Maass1.jpg is tagged as lacking author info
Done
File:UK-NWE-Norway-2.jpg: when/where was this first published and who was the original author? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done

Comments by Ranger Steve

I do not have as many concerns about this article as I do the other destroyers currently at A-Class nomination, but I still feel that this article lacks a comprehensive background section. As one of the first destroyers constructed after the First World War, it needs more explanation of why it was built and what it was envisaged for. The evolution of the Type 34 destroyer needs to be summarised here.

The Narvik section is excellent, but the ships's story does not stop when it was beached. There are numerous impressive pictures of its wreck today, some may even be on Wikicommons. A bit more about that would close the article nicely. Regards, Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranger Steve: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ranger Steve: Do you have any other comments, or else any more concerns that you need addressed before you will support? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to Support now. The only thing I might say is that the lede is a little short and perhaps could be expanded a little with the addition of a few more details about Narvik, but it's not a deal breaker. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, nice work. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in the References, I suggest translating the title of the Dorr work. It can be added to the cite book template using "|trans_title="
Done
inconsistent spelling: "draft" and "draught"
Done
Adolf Hitler is overlinked
Done
there is a grammatical issue here: "Georg Thiele The ship was ordered..."
Done
"bow rebuilt to fix the large amount of water" --> "bow rebuilt to fix the damaged caused by the large amount of water..."
Done
suggest adding a month and year to this (in the lead): "During the early stages of the Norwegian Campaign, Georg Thiele fought in both naval Battles of Narvik and had to be beached to allow her crew to abandon ship safely after she had been severely damaged by British fire."

Done

@AustralianRupert: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Temporarily suspended pending progress on reviews for other articles in the series. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

suggest mentioning who the namesake was in the body of the text
I've added it to lede; looking for a good source to add it to body. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the text of the article says the ship was completed on 27 February 1937, while the infobox says it was commissioned that day. It should be consistent.
In Germany the two were often on the same day; she would be completed and commissioned on same day. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've adjusted the text slightly to hopefully make that clearer. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the referencing style seems slightly inconsistent as one now seems to use sfn templates, but the others don't.
Fixed

Comments by The Bushranger

Good to see the 'little boys' getting some love. A lot has already been covered above, so I'll hit the points that I think could really use some work to be up to snuff here.

"32–64 depth charges, 4 throwers and 6 individual racks" - this sounds like the throwers and racks are seperate somehow. Perhaps "launched by" or "launched from" would clarify that?
Done
Something about the post-beaching "career" (for want of a better term) should be in the lede. "The ship, having broken up, is now a popular diving site" or something along those lines.
Done
"Initial designs were for large ships more powerful than the French and Polish destroyers then in service" - This just nags at me as slightly awkward-looking. Perhaps "Initial designs for the new destroyers..." would help?
Done
"but the design grew..." Also a little awkward when contrasted to the fact the ships were already regarded as large. "Grew further" perhaps?
Done
"The only real innovative part of the design..." 'Real' sounds...oddly informal here. "Substantially" might work better, or "significantly"?
Done
The description refers to depth charge launchers, while the infobox says DC throwers. This should be made consistent to one or the other.
Done
Was the ship's name given to her at launching, or commissioning?
Looking into now Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"to have her bow rebuilt to fix the damage caused by the large amount of water that came over her bow in head seas." Would "during sea trials" be appropriate?
I don't know if it makes sense to add it, at least where I presume you are thinking of adding it (at the end?). While ships generally did go much faster during sea trials than any other time, even wartime, it was fixed because it was a problem even at wartime speed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"which was transporting Adolf Hitler to occupy Memel." - The wording here is somewhat unclear. Was Hitler going to occupy the city by himself? "To give a speech celebrating the occupation of Memel" perhaps might be an idea here?
Done
"She participated in the Spring fleet exercise" - 'spring' probably shouldn't be capitalised.
Done
"down the fjord" - wikilink fjord, perhaps?
Done
"was able to fire approximately 13 shells" - would mentioning what size shells Norge was firing be relevant?
Done
"were the first to refuel" - "the first ships to refuel" might be better.
Done
"the five destroyers of the British 2nd Destroyer Flotilla" - as 2DF is a redlink, the ships should perhaps be named here (with according tweaks later when they are currently first named)?
Done
"Thiele probably also hit her with a torpedo" - a bit causal phrasing here, perhaps. "Thiele is believed to have hit her..." might be better?
Done
"as she'd been hit seven times" - also casual language. Would suggest expanding the contraction.
Done
"they did inflict splinter damage" - is there an appropriate wikilink for splinter that could be provided?
Surprisingly none. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The pursuing British destroyers initially engaged the latter ship until it exhausted its ammo and retreated to the head of the fjord itself and then switched their attentions to Thiele." - run-on sentnece; also, it's not clear if it's Ludemann or the British ships retreating.
Done
Seconding Ranger Steve's question if a modern-day picture of the wreck is available.
Done
- Well, that took a bit longer than I'd expected. Overall this is very good, and my comments mostly mere quibbles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  @The Bushranger: I've done all but finding out if she was named during launching or commissioning, (although I'm fairly certain its launching). Do you have any more comments? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice work. The only major thing I can suggest now is perhaps alternating the pictures left-right-left (and/or if the wreck pic remains on the left, adding a {{clear}} as at 1440px it overruns the top title of 'See also'). Other than that though, this is a tidy article that hits the points to inform and keep a reader interested, I'm happy to support. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 25 November 2017 (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.