# Talk:German destroyer Z3 Max Schultz

In copyediting this article, I noticed that the photo name was Z 3 Max Schultz.jpg - and following the links to other WP pages found that indeed Schultz is correct - the de:Max Schultz page even has a photo of the ship's namesake's gravestone. After amending the article, I'll move it. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Now all fixed.
N.B, The correct name can be found in this source, but not in this one, which may be the source of the original error. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of German destroyer Z3 Max Schultz's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ks7":
From German destroyer Z16 Friedrich Eckoldt: Koop and Schmolke, p. 97
From German destroyer Z1 Leberecht Maass: Koop and Schmolke, p. 77

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:German destroyer Z3 Max Schultz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 12:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I will base my review on Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz volume 6 pages 55 to 57. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert; Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe. Vol. 1–10. Ratingen: Mundus Verlag. ASIN B003VHSRKE.

First commander was KK Martin Baltzer, later Viceadmiral and chief of the Marine Personalamt (chief of the naval personnel office). Teddy Suhren would later have his discepancies with Baltzer
Added.
308 sailors lost their lives
Added.
the new bow increased length from 119m to 119.3m
Added.
the 6 x 2cm guns were augmented by further 2 x 2cm guns, at the time of her sinking she had 8 x 2cm guns
Gröner says the light AA armament wasn't increased to 8 x 20mm until mid-1942.
Now tell me, why and how would the Germans add two guns to a sunken ship in the middle of the North Sea? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I rather expect that he's talking about the surviving ships in general.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Would that apply to the type 1934 and 1934A class destroyers? I mean not that many stayed around long enough to see 1942 MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
There were more of the 16 that survived to '42 than you might think, so it may be more relevant than you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I recommend to use the full name of Kampfgeschwader 26, not the abbreviated KG 26 version
Done.
"Fleet review" links to "Fleet review (Commonwealth realms)"; Is this appropriate here?
Lacking a generic Fleet Review article, what else can I do? I can delete the link entirely if you'd prefer. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Just food for thought! Just because I find this awkward does not mean that it is inappropriate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)