Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German destroyer Z1 Leberecht Maass

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

German destroyer Z1 Leberecht Maass[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk), Sturmvogel_66 (talk)

German destroyer Z1 Leberecht Maass (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)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Leberecht_Maass1.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and could use a caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done

Comment by Indy beetle[edit]

I see you've made the short citation, but the full reference at the bottom of the page is missing. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SupportCommentsby auntieruth[edit]

  • Indy beetle has a good point.
  •  Done
  • I've made some minor tweaks. in the lead and here.
  • Question: was this ship constructed in contravention of 181 and 190 of the Versailles Treaty? It looks like it, both in timing and long tons, and, if so, it's worth mentioning. auntieruth (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to my books rn; but I seem to remember them not violating it (I believe another treaty made by the British superseded the 800 ton limit for Destroyer replacement. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ranger Steve[edit]

I have concerns about this article, which I've come to after seeing Z39 at FAC. Although the requirements for A class are not as strict as FAC, there are many similarities. In this case I feel A2 is relevant (The article reflects all major threads of scholarship, reports both sides of a conflict even-handedly, and contains an appropriate amount of context.) I feel that context is entirely lacking from this article. This is especially important if the intention is to put this article to FAC immediately after it is finished here, as was the case with Z39.

This was the first destroyer to be constructed by Germany after the First World War, but there is no background to that fact. Why was it built? What evolution was there from First World War design? What strategy did Germany envisage for its destroyers? How did it impact on the Treaty of Versailles? Similarly, the Type 1934 Destroyer is only mentioned in the lead and infobox and not expanded upon at all. Her sister ships are not mentioned either, despite being part of the same order. There is a wealth of information on this in Whitley alone that should be in here. I believe that a comprehensive background section is required.

There is very little context in the career section as well. Z1's actions are described in a series of short sentences that outline what she did, but not why. Even the Second World War is not mentioned in this section (only in the lead). (By the way, if you're going to use British English as you have in Z39, may I suggest Second World War over World War 2?). Only Operation Wikinger is linked, but a summary sentence explaining what it was would be useful too. The invasion of Poland isn't explained, nor is the reason for attacking English vessels. This may sound basic, but nowhere in the article do you state that Germany was at war with these nations (except the lead, which is meant to reflect the article).

In summary, I think this article needs considerable expansion in order to meet A-Class criteria. Doing so will make it a much more suitable candidate for FAC afterwards as well. In the meantime, I must reluctantly oppose. Regards Ranger Steve Talk 10:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to support, after significant improvement of the article by Sturmvogel 66. Ranger Steve Talk 18:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, noting that Steve's concerns haven't yet been addressed, I've only taken a quick look. Thanks for your efforts so far, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • there is a red link for German design load. Other instances of "load" in the article redirect to Displacement (ship), should design load also do this? If not, is it notable enough for a stand alone article, or should a redirect to a different article be considered?
  • Citation # 1 ( Koop & Schmolke) is inconsistently formatted
  • there is a short citation to Jackson, but no corresponding full entry in the References
  • when or if Steve's concerns can be addressed or responded to, I will come and take a more thorough look
    • I've seriously trimmed the technical section which should address your first bullet point and have fixed the first ref as per your second point. I've removed the bit about the low freeboard pending a look at my sources, which removes the reference to Jackson as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've returned from my Wikibreak and will start to revise the article in response to the comments above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed my first pass at revising the article; see what y'all think. Any stray BritEng?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Sturm, I only found one example, which I've fixed. Additionally, "North Sea and Lutjens transferred his flag..." I'm not sure if Lutjens' full name has been mentioned. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I mentioned his full name in the second para of the service history. How does it look in general?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, seen now. The punctuation (Lütjens) threw out my control+F search. Anyway, it looks good to me, the only other things that stood out were a couple of slight inconsistencies: "displaced 2,223 long tons (2,259 t)" v. "Displacement: 2,323 long tons (2,360 t)" and the difference in dates in the infobox v. body for when it was laid down (10 October v 15 October). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good eyes, my friend! Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Significantly improved. Nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Parsecboy[edit]

  • It was still the Reichsmarine until 1935
    • Do want me to use that until '35 and then Kriegsmarine?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah. I'd probably also change the line in the lead to read "...German Navy (initially the Reichsmarine and then the Kriegsmarine)", with perhaps an explanatory note on the name change.
  • Didn't Hitler wait until 1935 to repudiate Versailles?
    • There's probably a difference between the armament provisions of the treaty and the treaty in its entirety. Koop & Schmolke say that Kurt von Schleicher "announced that Germany no longer felt bound by the Versailles Treaty" on 26 July 1932. I've rephrased that bit to avoid the issue since I can't verify it with the books that I have on hand.
      • I have no idea what Koop and Schmolke are talking about, since the naval clauses were still definitely in effect until 1935. The big deal about the Anglo-German Naval Treaty was the fact that it de facto removed the Versailles naval restrictions on Germany - that obviously wouldn't have been the case if Germany had already repudiated those clauses. And whatever Schleicher might have said, according to Kurt von Schleicher, on winning the chancellorship in Jan. 1933, he announced that ridding Germany of Part V (the disarmament clauses) was one of his major policy goals. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Versailles (Art. 190) limited destroyers to 800 tons
  • pocket battleship -> heavy cruiser (or armored ship if you prefer)
  • Fix the missing umlaut in the second reference to Lütjens
  • Italicize Altmark
  • "...and might result some useful auxiliary ships for the Kriegsmarine" - something is missing here
  • Luftwaffe probably ought to be italicized
  • Ditto with operation names like Nordmark and Wikinger. Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • All addressed except for the Reichsmarine/Kriegsmarine thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/German_destroyer_Z1_Leberecht_Maass&oldid=808475063"