Talk:Type 1945 destroyer

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Type 1945 destroyer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 19:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• When was the design prepared? One could assume from the type number, but it's not explicitly stated in the text.

 Done

• I'd want to see more context - ideally, who designed the ships, what they were envisioning the ships would do (for instance, the return to turbines suggests an emphasis on shorter range, higher speed actions). For starters, I'd like to see some discussion of the role of the fleet post-Barents Sea. Also, give a bit more on the cancellation of the project than simply "the end of the war was rapidly approaching." And was the project simply academic? Many of these types of "late-war, on the losing side" projects were simply the work of bored designers with nothing else to do.

Working now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: I've checked all my books on the subject, and the only thing I have got (and have added) is that they were designed with the goal of being able to fight submarines, weak ships, and airplanes; I have done everything else. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is context about the German navy in 1945. By that time, the surface fleet was restricted to gunfire support in the Baltic and evacuating soldiers and civilians, and it and its ports were being bombed to smithereens by the 8th AF and BC. Ideally this would include a discussion on the Barents Sea debacle and Hitler's decision to basically abandon the surface fleet in favor of U-boats (and accordingly halt all construction and most repair work). Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Anything on this? Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: I've been working on general context in my Sandbox (I.e. construction issues, Barbara, and specific time context, I can refocus on this though. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: I believe I have added the context needed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not thrilled with it - the loss of Bismarck and Tirpitz was much less relevant than the Battle of the Barents Sea, for instance. You might also talk about Soviet advances on the Eastern Front necessitating much more activity in the Baltic. Parsecboy (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Super sorry for the delay; I've finally added the bits about East front and civilian evacuation. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Just wanted to confirm you've seen this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• "who's plans" - "who" does not apply to objects, only people. Suggest replacing it with "the plans for which"

 Done

Fix the similar thing in the lead - "whose" is also wrong.

• Fix the "pinnance" in the infobox

 Done

Not done - it's still there.

• Also fix the "x"s - they should be "×"s instead.

 Done

• "long at waterline" -> "long at the waterline"

 Done

• "steam boilers, rather than diesel engines" - steam turbines would be the equivalent, not the boilers (and link both)
•  Done
• Link [beam (nautical)]], draft (hull), displacement (ship), Cutter (boat) and dinghy, naval mine, and fix the link to pinnace to Pinnace (ship's boat). Also add lk=in to the first shp, knot, and nautical mile conversions
•  Done
• You sure on the caliber of the main guns? German guns of the caliber were 12.7cm, not 12.8 - that's also not the proper nomenclature - it'd be 12.7 cm SK C/41. And explain what L/45 means. Also, twin mounts or individual? Ditto for the other guns. And add redlinks to the guns where necessary - no doubt User:Snowdawg will be along to create the articles eventually.

• I fixed calibre, don't know how it slipped my notice that I put it in wrong. Where would the L/45 would be best placed? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Done

  Just Realized i never actually answered the "twin or single" question; all of the [non-usable] sources I've encountered looking for the answer claim it was four twin gun turrets, but I can't cite them. Might have to order Breyer. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

   Done now. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• L/76,5, L/66,6 - this is the English Wikipedia, not the German - we use decimal points, not commas ;)

 Done

• "12 3 cm (1.2 in)" -> "twelve 3 cm..."

 Done

• Speaking of commas, add one to "1440" and "5000"

 Done

• Torpedo tubes are not supplied with "rounds of ammunition"

 Done

• It's Deschimag, not Dechimag (and add the link)

 Done

• "They were calculated to have 12 kg/shp (35 lb/kW)." - what does this mean? (I know what figure you're referring to, but readers won't)

 Done

• File:Zerstörer Class 1945.jpg - as far as I'm aware, model kits are copyrighted so a photo of a completed model would be a derivative work (I know I've seen this discussed on Commons in the past, but likely could not locate the discussion even if I had the time to pore over things). You might be able to move it to en.wiki and switch it to Fair Use (or alternatively, scan in a line-drawing from Gröner or one of the others).

I'll see what I can do. I've removed the image for now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: I've added an image. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've resized it down to be compliant with the non-free use criteria. Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sort of a random question, but your user page says you use AmEng, but the articles you write are all in BrEng - any reason why? Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I am American but grew up in Malaysia and Singapore, which were both British colonies, so I learned formal writing in British English. Because of that I tend to do formal writing in British English even accidentally. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Make sure footnotes are in chronological order - you've got things like "[3][2][4]". Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)