Talk:Type 1937J destroyer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk · contribs) 12:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible improvements

• A. Redlinks - It appears that the article relies on/directs to information that would be contained in 6 currently non-existent articles, while this isn't necessarily an issue with the article itself, creating some stubs would be of use. These are: German design load - Type 1937-I destroyer - Type 1937-II destroyer - Type 1937-III destroyer - Type 1937-IV destroyer - Type 1936A destroyer.

I have planned to create these ships, some of which are already within my userspace as drafts. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Y That is good.

• B. Image - obviously the design was abandoned so none were built, however an image of a blueprint may be findable, or a concept drawing could be used. This is not essential - I don't know how easy it is to find old Kriegsmarine documents.

I've been unable to find any online, and lack the technical skills to create one. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Y No worries, I was being rather hopeful in asking for an image of a WWII German blueprint!

• C. "ocean-going escort ships, which could attack and defend convoys and also be able to operate in tropical climates", this could be clearer - you can't expect the average layman to know that convoys were not in the tropics, so this implies that they were only going to be used in tropical climes. (I assume they were not). Possibly a wikilink to escort ships. I am unsure about the definition of "ocean-going", this could use a reference. (ocean going vessel definition).

Ocean going here means that they were capable of serving in the deep sea; something the Kriegsmarine war-built ships were notoriously bad at (A German officer even commented that Germans "have an amazing lake navy".) I've added a link to wiktionary "ocean-going". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Y The wiktionary link and clarification re the convoys location has dealt with my concerns.

• D. "The Type 1937J design was made in 1937, as one of the five project studies done by the Kriegsmarine the others being the Type 1937-I, II, III and IV destroyers.[1]", something about this sentence bothers me, possibly writing "design was made" rather than something like "The Type 1937J concept was designed in 1937...".

Fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Good.

• E. It says: "The design was abandoned in 1938, largely because the range and speed requirements could not be achieved without reductions in armament.[3][4]" now the armament is stated in the infobox and elsewhere in the article, but this suggests that the stated speed was not possible combined with the stated armament, which suggests the speed was implausible and/or that the design had several different stages with different armament specifications. The article could discuss this if it was the case. Otherwise qualifying that the proposed speed was not possible could be made more obvious. This is actually quite hard, since a ship which has been built is a known spec, and this is really not - so putting forward that this was a design concept and that specifications were concept only is important.

How would you best recommend I do this? Is there a special template/format, or else would I just put (conceptual only) or something to that effect next to the more implausible design stats? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

See discussion Y

• F. Is it not known specifically who designed this? I mean it was of course the Kriegsmarine, but consider naming a department at the very least, if not the director of the design team.

I've searched for this but haven't found anything; Kriegsmarine ship design department articles are severely lacking; also most of the records were likely destroyed by allied bombing (the Allies bombed Germany's few shipyards a lot during end-war), or lost, or in German. I'll search deeper though. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Y Again, rather hopeful to expect this information to be available.

• G. Infobox - the infobox seems to contain information not in the article body - like crew complement, cruising speed. Additionally I am unsure about including an unknown in the infobox, Propulsion: Unknown, but designed to output 90,360 shaft horsepower (67,380 kW).

I wrote unknown because it is verbatim from source, I'm looking for anything that other sources may have, but I do not know if the designers did not pick one due to their belief that a new one would soon be available, or else if that information was simply lost. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The crew complement is found "They were to have a complement of 360 men.[3], and cruising speed is dead last at "at a cruising speed of 19 knots (35 km/h; 22 mph)." Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Y I would try to clarify the mind-numbing section of numbers, but do not know how it could be improved - it is what it is.

• H. Obviously the article is quite short, but I don't think that is a problem.

Y

> Dysklyver 12:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: I believe I have responded to or fixed all things you have mentioned. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges: - Re point E. I think something like (emphasis added for ease of reference): "36 knots (67 km/h; 41 mph) (conceptual top speed)" for infobox. And for the body something like "giving them a conceptual range of 4,450 nautical miles (8,240 km; 5,120 mi) at a conceptual cruising speed of 19 knots (35 km/h; 22 mph)." and maybe start the Characteristics section with something like The design specifications were eventually shown to be unworkable, but during the concept phase The Type 1937J destroyers were designed to be... - that way no reader could possibly miss the point that the specs were design only, even though it is technically stated directly above in the Development section. Dysklyver 14:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: Done. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges: - Good job, heads ups that someone has tagged it as an orphan, you need to link to this article from other articles to deal with the tag. Dysklyver 08:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: I've made a link from German World War II destroyers to the article. I'll look into putting in more links, but I don't think anything else other than similar projects, or the department that made the design, could feasibly link to here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes that's good. Everything is fine except the breadth of coverage, I don't know enough about ship design to know for sure that something hasn't been missed, it might be a good idea to get someone else to gave a quick look as well. Dysklyver 16:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: would you mind taking a look? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd have to look at Gröner to see if anything else can be added from there, though I don't have access to Koop & Schmolke or Whitley. But off the top of my head, there should be some discussion of the context of this class - the design was prepared after the Germans signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, for instance, in a period where German naval strategy was something of a mess. Raeder was working on what became Plan Z at the time, but nothing was close to being finalized as early as 1937. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I have put the review on hold to give you some time to look into this, I personally think some context would be good, but also confess to not be an expert on 1930's German naval shipbuilding. Dysklyver 19:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver and Parsecboy: I have checked Gröner, will check Koop & Schmolke or Whitley. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver and Parsecboy: I have now checked both Koop & Schmolke and Whitley; I added quite a bit from one of the Whitley books. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd still want to see more context on the design - at a minimum, I'd expect some discussion of German naval rearmament in the context of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. Conway's 1922-1946 has a decent, if short, account of the situation at the start of the chapter on Germany.

A few quick observations: who is Raeder? (obviously I know who he is, but the reader doesn't - give him a rank and title, please). Also, italicize foreign words like OKM. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

well, it seems greatly improved after Iazyges's latest edits, I am going to promote it now, but if anyone thinks of something to add then go ahead. Dysklyver 13:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Criteria compliance

Assessment against immediate failures criteria.

1. Plausibly good. Y

2. No copyright infringements. Y earwig AGF no offline sources copied.

3. No unresolved cleanup banners. Y

4. No edit warring on the page. Y

6 criteria test

• 1. Y

• 2. Y

• 3. Not sure yet. Subject is very limited. Y

• 4. Y

• 5. Y

• 6. Y