Talk:German destroyer Z51

Title

This article should probably be under German destroyer Z51, since there was only one member of the class planned or built. Only in rare circumstances, where the cancelled ships are notable (as in the case with HMS Hood and the Admiral class) should there be a class article for a unique vessel. Parsecboy (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:German destroyer Z51/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 00:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Iazyges: I am confused with the article title. Is this article about a ship or a class. The first line of the lead speaks as if it is about a class, where as the later part says this is about a ship. Again, infobox is about class of ship. And the body is also confusing in that way. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  It is a class that only possessed one ship; so the name of the article is the name of the ship, as per WP norm (unless they are part of a class which was supposed to have dozens of ships, but only had one laid down, and the rest cancelled, or some other extreme.) I'll make that more clear. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox;
  • Italics on "Kriegsmarine"
  •  Done
  • 1943–?
  •  Done
  • Link units and armaments in infobox
  •  Done
• Section 1;
  • Italics on "Kriegsmarine"
  •  Done
  • Link "two-stroke", "diesel engine"
  •  Done
  • was modified heavily; from which? the original design? Did it have complications that would delay the construction?

    From the original design; if I recall correctly it was hinted that the engines would take too long to build, since almost all naval resources were focused on U-boats at this time. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  • "the only ship of the class to be laid down"; this has already been mentioned in the para 1
  •  Fixed
  • RM? It is never defined before, if it is the currency define it in braces on the first mention
  •  Fixed
  • Her breaking up was finished on "in" February 1949
  •  Done
• Section 2;
  • Link "motor pinnace", "torpedo cutter", "anti-aircraft gun"
  •  Done
  • Be consistent on using the conversion template; 108 metres, 12.7-centimetre; check usage of hyphen
  •  Done
  • Also abbreviate the units from second mention
  •  Done

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I believe I have done all you have asked.

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Do you have any more concerns? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)