Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beograd-class destroyer/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2017 [1].

Beograd-class destroyer

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Beograd class are a classic example of the fates of World War II Yugoslav ships. The class consisted of three destroyers built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy in the lead-up to World War II. Two were captured when the Axis powers invaded in April 1941, but the other (Zagreb) was blown up by two officers who were killed in the explosions. The others were put into service by the Italians, who used them mainly on the North Africa convoys. One was lost in their hands, but the other was taken over by the Germans when the Italian surrendered in September 1943. It wasn't sunk until late in the war. In the late 1960s, a French film was made about the scuttling of Zagreb, and in the early 1970s the two officers who scuttled her were posthumously awarded the Order of the People's Hero by Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito. All comments and suggestions gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

Their standard displacement was 1,210 tonnes (1,190 long tons), and they displaced 1,655 tonnes (1,629 long tons) at full load - looks funny going noun/verb. Why not, " Their standard displacement was 1,210 tonnes (1,190 long tons), increasing to 1,655 tonnes (1,629 long tons) at full load" or something like it.
Good point, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it sank close to shore, and some of the crew swam to safety. - err, if only one died, didn't all the rest swim to safety...?
They may have used the lifeboats, but the sources don't say.
Fair point Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise reads ok. I did have more questions about completeness but note that daughter articles are comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Cas Liber. Class articles tend to be very much a summary rather than in depth about each ship. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, reads well and appears comprehensive, though this is an area I know very little about, hence I tentatively support this as a lay reader. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

Recusing from coord duties, I copyedited as usual so let me know any concerns. Not a big article but I appreciate that the ships didn't see a lot of action. Outstanding points:

  • "the only modern sea-going vessels left to the KSCS were 12 torpedo boats, and they had to build their naval forces from scratch -- firstly, as it's one kingdom I'd expect "it had to build its naval forces"; secondly, if it had 12 boats, is it really building from scratch or is it more like building its major ship fleet from scratch?
  • I've tweaked it to "almost from scratch", as 12 torpedo boats aren't exactly a significant asset.
  • FN17 seems to be formatted oddly but not sure how to fix it as it's SFN. Actually I'd prefer it if Nikkimaria checked over the formatting of the sources overall...
  • There has been a recent dubious change to the sfn template which has screwed up the way I (and others) have been using it for newspapers and news websites, throwing up an ampersand between the newspaper and date of issue. I've used an "unauthorised" workaround to address it for now.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tks for those changes, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing (checked by Nikki at MilHist ACR) looks good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian, for the c/e, review and image check. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Maritime Museum is a publisher not a work
  • The work is the webpage "World War I and II". I'm not sure I understand your point. Do you mean the shortened footnote?
  • No - the full cite is using |website= for the museum name, where it should use |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Niehorster a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has a PhD in history and several books on orders of battle published by The Military Press and other publishers, and held by libraries like the University of Cambridge, Australian Defence Force Academy, US Air Force Academy etc. I've found him to be highly accurate and consistent with other sources for order of battle information. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Comments: My comments have been addressed, and I thinkthe re-worded section is a definite improvement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • A very long sentence starts off the Background section. Of the several obvious places to split this, "almost from scratch.[2] The name of the state" seems like the most natural.
  • Done.
  • "planned half-flotilla was ever built.[4] Despite the fact that a half-flotilla of large destroyers" - one or the other "half-flotilla"s is redundant.
  • I've rewritten that bit, see what you think?
  • " three ships had only been in commission for a short time" - this could mean a couple of things. Were they fully active, or in some intermediate state? Had they all gone through their shakedowns by this point?
  • I had neglected to link ship commissioning, now done.
  • "arrested pending an investigation.[17] When Yugoslavia " A para-split at this point seems well advised.
  • Good idea, done.
  • "scuttled on 1 May.[13][14] In 1967, a French film" - and here.
  • Done.

That's about it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Maury! Let me know what you think about the rewording of those sentences. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed the article at A-class, and am happy with the quality. The only nitpick I'll make now is there's a duplicate link to Division (naval) in the service history section. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for taking another look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this one looks good to go, with fourthree supports, and an image and source review. Can I have dispensation to put another one up please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I've been rather snowed under in RL. As I'm promoting now, I suspect the point is moot! Sorry again for not getting back to you. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Beograd-class_destroyer/archive1&oldid=792348070"