Talk:HNLMS De Ruyter (1935)

Redirects

The link to the list of ships of this name seems to send me back to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulinSaudi (talk • contribs) 10:30, 22 December 2004

Question

This passage:

"However, due to the cost-cutting policy that went into her design, De Ruyter was not quite up to her task. Her main battery (7 × 150 mm guns) was underpowered in comparison to other light cruisers of the time (for example the British Leander class), and the class had inadequate armour as well and lacked long range anti-aircraft guns. However, her fire control system was excellent."

This seems unnecessarily belittling. She has one main gun less than a Leander which is a thousand tons heavier and one main gun more than an Arethusa which is a thousand tons lighter. Both classes receive glowing articles on this wiki. She can't be called undergunned.

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HNLMS De Ruyter (1935)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: GGOTCC (talk · contribs) 17:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jordano53 (talk · contribs) 16:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Will start review later this week! Jordano⁵³ 16:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, this one got away from me. Reviewing now. Jordano⁵³ 19:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@GGOTCC: Review is complete! Jordano⁵³ 21:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jordano53 Thank you very much for the copyedits, I really appreaciate it! I'll incorperate your feedback now. GGOTCC 21:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jordano53 I (think) I addressed all other concerns, but may you elaborate on the diffrences between the infobox on prose? Is the issue that they contradict eachother, or are written diffrently? GGOTCC 21:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see the issue. I would be compeltly blind if you did not mention it! GGOTCC 21:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

They contradict each other. The measurements in the infobox have different decimals than the ones in the prose. Jordano⁵³ 23:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jordano53 Thanks! Have I fixed all of the issues? GGOTCC 00:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@GGOTCC: I still see 170.9 in the infobox and 170.8 in the prose. Jordano⁵³ 05:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jordano53I swear I changed that twice. Thanks! GGOTCC 05:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Cool beans- should be good to pass now. Jordano⁵³ 05:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Appologies for the back and forth. I've been sleep deprived all week, hence my blindness. Cheers! GGOTCC 05:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Should the first instance of ABDA be written out in the lead? Just about all general characteristics are all different between the infobox and prose Further objections emerged through an essay contest... What were the details of this essay contest? Who organized it and when was it held? ...provided an opportunity for a lucky shot to destroy them all... Could be entirely nitpicky, but is there a more academic way to phrase this? Should we standardize usage of ABDA versus ABDACOM?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Upon my spot check (Whitley + BBC + Online news sources), there seems to be no issue here. Faithfully replicated. Made some small adjustments to cite template params
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig is happy. No violations as far as I can tell.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I see no concerns here- covers the background behind the construction of the ship, the description of her, her history, as well as modern-day wreckage info
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Super strong article. Just a few adjustments and it will be good to go!

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

HNLMS De Ruyter

• ... that the Dutch light cruiser HNLMS De Ruyter (pictured) was designed by a clandistine front company supported by Nazi Germany?

• Source: "The most important German naval enterprise established in the Netherlands was the design firm of N.V. Ingenieurskantoor voor Scheepsbouw, or IvS (a front for AG Vulcan Stettin, AG Weser and Germaniawerft), founded in The Hague in 1922. Admiral Paul Behncke, commander of the post-war German Reichsmarine from 1920 to 1924, insisted that German naval design, particularly U-boat design, be continued clandestinely abroad and was the driving force behind the establishment of IvS...The Koninklijke Marine, through the association of its own personnel with these firms, received access to their technical developments while allowing the Reichsmarine and later Kriegsmarine to cover much of the financial investment."
  "DE RUYTER CLASS CRUISER DE RUYTER...The Koninklijke Marine turned to IvS to prepare the design of the new cruiser, intent on taking advantage of the firm’s access to recent German design developments." PG 10, 12, 18, 20 from The Royal Netherlands Navy of World War II by Ryan Noppen

• ALT1: ... that an essay contest was held to determine the design of HNLMS De Ruyter (pictured)?

• Source: "A Controversal Cruiser....A prize was offered for the best essay on the best type of cruiser for the Royal Netherlands Navy..."
  PG 75, Profile Warship: Her Netherlands Majesty's Ship De Ruyter by F.C. van Oosten

• ALT2: ... that the shipwreck of HNLMS De Ruyter (pictured) went missing in 2016, with the wreck's imprint on the ocean floor still visable?

• Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/three-dutch-second-world-war-shipwrecks-vanish-java-sea-indonesia

• Reviewed:
• Comment: ALT2: While interesting, I listed it last as it could serve as a good hook for an article that would be otherwise unremarkable

Improved to Good Article status by GGOTCC (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

GGOTCC 00:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC).