| Revision as of 00:17, 12 January 2018 editPeacemaker67 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators95,451 edits →Comments by PM: spt← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:48, 12 January 2018 edit undoIndy beetle (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers46,986 edits →German destroyer Z3 Max Schultz: commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| *:{{Ping|Peacemaker67}} Believe I have addressed all of your comments. ] ] ] 15:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | *:{{Ping|Peacemaker67}} Believe I have addressed all of your comments. ] ] ] 15:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::*All my comments have been addressed, supporting. Great job! ] (]) 00:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC) | ::*All my comments have been addressed, supporting. Great job! ] (]) 00:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ====Comments by Indy beetle==== | |||
| *The caption of the infobox photo reads "''Z3 Max Schultz at sea''". It would actually appear that the ship is in port, especially considering that the smoke in the photograph is coming from some tower in the background and not from the ships funnels. | |||
| *The lead explains the debate surrounding the circumstances of the ships' sinking, but the infobox does not. Suggest adding an "or by aircraft" or other brief explanation. If it is that much more likely that the court of inquiry was wrong, then alter the statement "''Z3 Max Schultz'' was either bombed and sunk by a patrolling German bomber, or struck a British mine" to reflect that the former is unlikely. -] (]) 03:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *"the Kriegsmarine now expected it to serve as a small cruiser". The "now" is unnecessary. | |||
| *"only real innovative part of the design, the high-pressure boilers, were an over-complicated design". Redundant, also the switch between the plural boilers and singular design is grammatically risky. I suggest revision. | |||
| *"A pair of reload torpedoes were provided". Again the singular and plural mixing, as the singular word "pair" is the subject and its verb "were" is plural. | |||
| *"have her bow rebuilt to reduce the amount of water that came over the bow". Redundant, suggest changing the second bow to "it". | |||
| *"escorted Adolf Hitler aboard the pocket battleship Deutschland to occupy Memel". Wikilink Memel to ] for context. | |||
| *Per ] seasons should not be capitalized. | |||
| *"Postwar research revealed that one or both ships struck a British minefield". In the event it was only one ship, is there anyone it would be (which was more likely to have been sunk by mine)? | |||
| :As a friendly note, I would encourage you to perhaps think it over before putting any more articles through the review process. on the ''Z31'' A-class review were made on 2 January and have not been addressed. With the six you have in the queue, I hope you aren't biting off more than you can chew. | |||
| -] (]) 03:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:48, 12 January 2018
« Return to A-Class review list
German destroyer Z3 Max Schultz
- Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
German destroyer Z3 Max Schultz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
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)
Image review
- Image is appropriately licensed but could use a caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Done
Comments by auntieruth
- Again, quite interesting read, especially in parallel with the Maass....it has the same problems as Maass, though: lead too short, not enough broader information in it, choppiness of text, and was this another ship built in contravention of Versailles Treat, etc. auntieruth (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- Re-opened now per request: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by PM
This article is in great shape. I have a few comments/queries:
- in the lead, it isn't necessary to include "The German destroyer", and it creates a bit of redundancy of the word "destroyer". I would just start it as "Z3 Max Schultz was..."
- Done
- might be worth adding the number of fatalities in the accident to the lead
- Done
- it seems from the body that the cause of the sinking of both ships is a bit contested, worth mentioning both potential causes in the lead
- Done
- I suggest something like "was either bombed and sunk by a patrolling German bomber, or struck a British mine, with loss of 280 of her crew" then add a sentence at the end of the lead about the post-war inquiry. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- worth mentioning in the lead the number of sailors lost in her sinking
- Done
- conversion rounding of the 2 cm guns isn't consistent between the body and infobox
- Done
- where were the TT located?
- Done
- Fleet review redirects to the Commonwealth one, seems incongruous.
- There is no article for German Fleet review, or general fleet review, so its the nearest one. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- "her sisters Z1 Leberecht Maass" etc, as the ZX are part of the names, aren't they? Perhaps be consistent through the article with it?
- Done
- link Kampfgeschwader 26
- Done
- the whole explanation about her fate and that of Z1 should probably be less definite given post-war research, eg "En route, the flotilla was apparently attacked"
- Done
- you could get rid of some whitespace by adjusting the Notes to 20em
- Done
- the sources are all reliable and properly formatted.
That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: Believe I have addressed all of your comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- All my comments have been addressed, supporting. Great job! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments by Indy beetle
- The caption of the infobox photo reads "Z3 Max Schultz at sea". It would actually appear that the ship is in port, especially considering that the smoke in the photograph is coming from some tower in the background and not from the ships funnels.
- The lead explains the debate surrounding the circumstances of the ships' sinking, but the infobox does not. Suggest adding an "or by aircraft" or other brief explanation. If it is that much more likely that the court of inquiry was wrong, then alter the statement "Z3 Max Schultz was either bombed and sunk by a patrolling German bomber, or struck a British mine" to reflect that the former is unlikely. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- "the Kriegsmarine now expected it to serve as a small cruiser". The "now" is unnecessary.
- "only real innovative part of the design, the high-pressure boilers, were an over-complicated design". Redundant, also the switch between the plural boilers and singular design is grammatically risky. I suggest revision.
- "A pair of reload torpedoes were provided". Again the singular and plural mixing, as the singular word "pair" is the subject and its verb "were" is plural.
- "have her bow rebuilt to reduce the amount of water that came over the bow". Redundant, suggest changing the second bow to "it".
- "escorted Adolf Hitler aboard the pocket battleship Deutschland to occupy Memel". Wikilink Memel to Klaipėda Region for context.
- Per MOS:SEASON seasons should not be capitalized.
- "Postwar research revealed that one or both ships struck a British minefield". In the event it was only one ship, is there anyone it would be (which was more likely to have been sunk by mine)?
- As a friendly note, I would encourage you to perhaps think it over before putting any more articles through the review process. My comments on the Z31 A-class review were made on 2 January and have not been addressed. With the six you have in the queue, I hope you aren't biting off more than you can chew.