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 Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

German destroyer Z4 Richard Beitzen[edit]

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

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a GA article, and I believe it meets the criteria for A class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 9 September 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]
- Re-opened now per request: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Llewellyn-Jones Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: Fixed now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in the infobox the "class and type" link should probably be re-aimed from German World War II destroyers to Type 1934-class destroyer
Done
"Richard Beitzen appears not have any additional AA guns added after this time": this sentence is missing something
Done
"Richard Beitzen, named after Lieutenant (Kapitänleutnant) Richard Beitzen...": this is a very busy sentence. I suggest trying to split it
Done
is there some way to break up the Construction and career section? Perhaps some subheadings, or an image?
Done
"sailed to the area of Iceland": this seems an awkward way to phrase this
Done
"Sometime in 1939–41 the ship" --> "Sometime in 1939–1941 the ship" per WP:DATERANGE
Done
in the References, suggest adding a page range for Hervieux's chapter in Roberts
Done
in the References, suggest adding a translation for the title of the Hildebrand work
Done
in the References, Llewellyn-Jones should come before Rohwer (alphabetically)
Done
@AustralianRupert: I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- All my suggestions above have been dealt with. I have one other suggestion: suggest moving "Sometime in 1939–1941 the ship was fitted with a FuMO 21 or FuMO 24 radar set above the bridge" to the Modifications sub-section. Anyway, I've added my support now. Thank you for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor issues of prose, but nothing to prevent a support. Factotem (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Design and description", 1st para, ...renounced the armament limitations of the Versailles Treaty that had ended World War I Pretty sure "that" should be "which".
Done
Section "Construction and career", 1st para, ... together with her sisters... Is it normal to write "sisters" and not "sister-ships"?
Yeah, but the first mentioning of it should be sister-ships, to reduce confusion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Section "Construction and career", 3rd para, ...laid 110 magnetic mines in the Shipwash area, off Harwich, on 9/10 February 1940 that sank six ships... Less sure, but I think "that" should be "which" here too.
Done
Section "Operation Wikinger", Postwar research revealed that one or both ships struck a British minefield laid by the destroyers Ivanhoe and Intrepid Ships strike mines but they enter minefields, surely?
Done
Section "German invasion of Norway", 2nd para, ...she participated in a sortie on 12–13 July that sank two small Soviet ships at the cost of expending 80% of their ammunition This seems to say that the two Soviet ships expended 80% of their ammunition. Is that what you mean?
Fixed
Section "Convoy interception", 2nd para, The three destroyers separated from Hipper to search for the convoy and were successful on the morning of 31 December. Reads a little oddly. Maybe "The three destroyers separated from Hipper to search for the convoy, which they found on the morning of 31 December."?
Done
Same section, 3rd para, ...she ran aground in the Karmsund on 27 October... The lead says that she ran aground in November.
Done
Same para, She reached Bergen on 26 November for temporary repairs that took until 18 December to effect. Another "that" that should be "which", I think.
I believe this one is supposed to stay that. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by PM

The infobox says the boilers were water tube ones, but that isn't specified in the body. Suggest doing that and linking.
- Good idea.
where were the TTs located?
- On the centerline, aft of each funnel, but that's best reserved for the class article, IMO.
there is inconsistency in the naming of ships, sometimes they have their Z number, sometimes not. Sometimes Richard Beitzen is just Beitzen. If the Z number is part of the name, I suggest using the Z number and full name throughout, or adopting another consistent approach. This inconsistency also occurs with Admiral Hipper then Hipper then back to Admiral Hipper.
Operation Wikinger in the section heading becomes Unternehmen Wikinger in the text, which is inconsistent. For something like this, I don't think the original German word is useful for the reader. This applies to the use of Unternehmen elsewhere, just use Operation.
- My OCD is triggered the half-assed translation of "Operation" while the rest of the German remains untranslated.
drop the caps in Court of Inquiry
I think you can drop (Unternehmen Weserübung)
20 cm Flakvierling should be 2 cm
suggest "After it was completed she was part of the screen for..."
suggest "and the destroyer Z29"
link minesweeper
link covering force

That's me done. Great work on this, a ship that had an interesting war history. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All done, see if my changes work for you. Thanks for the thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2018 (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.