Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jadran (training ship)/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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 25 January 2022 [1].

Jadran (training ship)

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unusual for me, in that it is about a sail training ship, not a warship. AFAIK it is the first sail training ship to come to FAC. Jadran was commissioned in the early 1930s for the Royal Yugoslav Navy, served with the Italians in a training role after she was captured by them in WWII, and was restored to socialist Yugoslavia following the war. She remained in Yugoslav hands until the wars in the 90s, and is now part of the Montenegrin Navy. Her ownership remains disputed between Croatia and Montenegro. The article recently passed GAN and Milhist A-Class review. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Check caption grammar - complete sentences should end in a period, fragments should not
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Jadran_saling_ship.JPEG: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All done I think, Nikkimaria. I've had to just make a few tweaks because I can't find a live link for the dead one, the metadata makes it clear it is a USN image. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria is this a pass for image review? (t · c) buidhe 02:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have collapsed this "review", the reasons I won't be addressing the comments are within. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Sorry to be harsh, but the article does not met

summary style
. Here are some of the examples that I found:

  • Return to Yugoslav service: There is a substantial amount of detail on this section, but I see no organization of facts here. Furthermore, I saw a lot of "fluff", such as:
    • Her hull was in a terrible state, with many hull plates rusting, and her deck planking removed, burned or rotten. Her sails, some rigging, instruments and engines were all missing, and her topmasts, gaffs and yards were rotten. Everything else that was flammable had been burned. (Why this level of detail matter? Can a shorter phrase such as "The ship is in a poor state." do the job just as well?)
    • This involved removing, cleaning and replacing the ballast, renewing the pine deck planking, the replacement of several hull plates and frames, and the kitchen funnel was redirected into a funnel within the main mast in a similar manner as the engine exhaust was ported through the mizzen mast. The lower row of
      portholes
      was also removed, which provides a useful visual means of determining when a photograph of the ship was taken. (Again, why this long?)
    • Due to the constant training and periodic refits, the standing crew received less and less training, but all officers and men of the navy spent at least some time aboard her during their naval education. (redundant?)
    • and so on, the examples are not exhaustive
  • Rump Yugoslavia and Montenegro: This section is better in my opinion, since it summarize the details better. However, I have a feeling that this is a mess of details, meaning that there is no "overarching" story here.


It seems like military history stuff are often written in strict chronological order, which can make the article very disorganized, as stuff from one topic are detached from each other. I would really like to see a major rewamp on summarizing facts. Do keep in mind that summarizing is not equal to simplifying: the key thing here is to make the facts organized and clean, with no excess wording. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorry to be harsh", CactiStaccingCrane? Brace yourself. I consider your opposition is an ill-considered and precipitous intervention. While you have been here for nearly six months and have over 6,000 edits, the vast majority of your edits relate to the Space X project. Great effort so far on that, getting it to GA (BTW, it could do with a criticism section detailing all the main negative things that have been observed by experts about the project if you want to get it to FA). However, I note the above was your very first FAC review/comment, and that nine minutes after your single intervening edit [2] you then commented/reviewed (and again opposed) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nonmetal/archive3, whose primary editor is Sandbh, who has had three previously successful FAC nominations of articles about metals and presumably has some idea what is needed at FA for such articles. Nonmetal is ~4,300 words long, and at a fast reading speed of 160 wpm, would take 27 minutes to read. That alone should give the FAC coordinators pause in giving any credence to your oppose here (and there). I further note that Sandbh intends to take no further action on your comments/oppose. I don't blame them, it is clearly a drive-by oppose from an inexperienced reviewer who doesn't appear to have read the whole article. Nine minutes after you finalised your comments on the Nonmetal review, you made a comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wisconsin Territorial Centennial half dollar/archive1 stating "I support this nomination on criteria 1d, 1e, 2b and 4. These criteria are often overlooked in FAC". Wisconsin Territorial Centennial half dollar is over 2,000 words long, and would take a fast reader over 12 minutes to read. On what possible basis could you draw the conclusion that those criteria are "often overlooked in FAC"? Your entire experience of reviewing FACs at that point began about one hour earlier (I'm being kind here, allowing you half an hour to review this article, which at 4,900 words would take fast reader more than that time). It also seems entirely unlikely you even read all of two (and maybe all) of the articles you reviewed. The following day you commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nicoll Highway MRT station/archive1. This type of drive-by reviewing (and especially opposing in such a manner) is highly disrespectful to Wikipedia and to the editors who have spent many hours locating and checking sources, developing an article, checking it and proof reading it, and taking it through multiple levels of review such as GAN and Milhist A-Class before even getting to FAC. Every article can be improved with fresh eyes, but this sort of behaviour is quite shocking to me, to the extent that I have never struck it before in over 70 FAC nominations. Before reviewing this article, did you familiarise yourself with other FAs or even GAs on wind-powered ships? I have made major contributions to over 20 successful FAC nominations of ship articles (all written in essentially with the same structure, style and level of detail, although this is the first (partly) wind-powered ship article I have developed to this level), and have also reviewed dozens of other ship articles written by other experienced ship article writers at FAC over a decade on WP, and they are all roughly similar in style and detail, although there are of course variations, and of course they could all be improved, even after they are promoted to FA. Your comments aren't based on any experience reviewing at FAC or on having developed articles to FA standard, and they don't reflect the consensus on structure, style or levels of detail expected for a ship article to be comprehensive and meet the FA criteria. I note you have only done one? GAN review so far. I strongly recommend you gain experience reviewing at the GA level to build your knowledge and skills as a reviewer across all article aspects rather than jumping in at FAC which can take a while to get the hang of. For the record, @WP:FAC coordinators: I intend to disregard this "review" for the above reasons, and take no action on the comments made. I will hat it shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by A. C. Santacruz

  • Note the most I know about sail ships or navies is the 3 years I spent competing in Optimist races as a kid, so many terms and such are unfamiliar to me.
Lead
  • I find it unusual that the dates for building and commissioning are not in the same sentence. It forces the reader to go back and check the previous sentence to see when it was built.
Fair enough, fixed I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the outbreak of World War II, Yugoslavia was neutral, and short cruises were conducted in the Adriatic Sea. could probably be better phrased as "As Yugoslavia was neutral at the outbreak of WWII, Jadran was able to conduct short cruises in the Adriatic Sea."
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Jadran was captured by the Italians who renamed her Marco Polo. is a weird way to phrase the sentence. "Jadran was captured and renamed to Marco Polo by Italy/the Italian Navy/the Italian Armed Forces" is more readable.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She continued to be used as [a] training ship, operating out of Pola on the Istrian Peninsula to cruise in the Adriatic, [...] also has the same issue as previous sentences were there are many clauses in a sentence that are structured one after another rather than cohesively. "She continued to be used as a training ship in the Adriatic, based in the Istrian port/city of Pola, [...]" might be better.
Great, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Italians capitulated in September 1943, she was being refitted in Venice and was captured by the Germans, who utilised her as a stationary training ship, and in the final few months of the war as a coal depot ship and floating bridge. should be divided in two as there are two many clauses in this sentence. "During the Italian capitulation in September 1943 she was captured by the Germans while being refitted in Venice. Thereafter, the Germans used her as a stationary training ship and, in the final months of the war, as a coal depot ship and floating bridge." is one way to do so.
Much better. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She underwent major overhauls in 1956 and between 1967 and 1969, and in 1984 undertook her first long-distance cruise in two decades. Not sure how relevant this is for the lead, but I'm sure editors with more experience in this topic can judge that better.
The resumption of long-distance work is important, but dropped the overhauls. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jadran had been sent to Tivat in the Bay of Kotor for a refit from her home port of Split -> "was undergoing a refit/was being reffited in the Bay of Kotor".
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She also sailed to the UK in 2005 for the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar celebrations. this reads weirdly in the middle of two sentences about her disputed ownership. I suggest merging it with the later sentence on her Barcelona trip like so (at the end of the paragraph): "She sailed in 2005 to take part in celebrations of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar and in 2008 to Barcelona for the World Conservation Congress."
Implemented something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If her overhaul history is worth mentioning in the lead, I suggest doing so at the end, as overhauls don't seem to affect her ownership history or use between the wars. "She has gone through major overhauls in 1956, 1967-1969, and 2013."
Dropped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent comments thus far,

A. C. Santacruz. Let me know if you don't think I have addressed any sufficiently? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll check in a bit. Sorry I only commented on the beginning and not the rest! I'm unfamiliar with the whole "long cruise" thing (a previous comment I have since removed was to "drop the unnecessary adjective" lol), I'd appreciate if you could briefly tell me why it's an important event for training sailing ships,
Please ping me! 08:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Your observations are appreciated. Regarding long-distance cruises, for much of her career she was limited to cruising the Adriatic, so highlighting in the lead that she returned to long-distance cruising is in my view an important change in circumstances to be included in the lead. Have a good weekend. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification,
Please ping me! 10:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Background
  • [...], this arrangement was not suitable, [...] why?
Explained. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As budget allocations to the navy were insufficient to purchase a sailing training ship of the required size due to the Royal Yugoslav Army being allocated the vast majority of military funding,[4] in 1925 the semi-official Yugoslav naval association, Jadranska straža (Adriatic Guard), decided to launch an appeal for donations, to be used to purchase one. This sentence is a bit too long. How about "The Royal Yugoslav Army was allocated the vast majority of military funding, leaving the Navy without sufficient funds to purchase a sufficiently-large sailing training ship. Therefore, in 1925 the semi-official Yugoslav naval association Jadranska straža (Adriatic Guard) launched an appeal for donations in order to purchase such a ship."? I think saying "sailing" is unnecessary after the first few mentions as it is understood that the article is referring to training ships of the sailing kind.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion of the funds raised is split between this section and the next. I don't necessarily understand why that is. Isn't Despite the shortfall, the Ministry of the Army and Navy then allocated an initial sum of four million dinars for the planned sailing training ship. The remaining funds were to be obtained via loans and German World War I reparations to the Kingdom of Serbia, the territory of which was now part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. more suitable for this section than the next, which can then start discussing the design once the ship had actually been ordered?
Sure, good point. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Design and construction
  • Josip Škarica, a naval engineer. I'd either say "naval engineer Josip Škarica" or remove the naval engineer clarification altogether, as it is my understanding that only naval engineers design ship usually, no?
went with the former. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The construction contract specified a price of 580,375 Reichsmarks or 7,916,052 dinars. Does this mean the contract specified payment could be done in either currency or that it was to be paid in Reichsmarks equivalent to x dinars?
the latter, clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the fact that the Stülcken shipyard had not built a steel sailing ship since 1902,[4] the navy had ordered four small tugs from it two years earlier and had been pleased with the vessels when they were delivered.[5] I'd move this to right after talking about the shipyard, as it flows more nicely. See: "It was ordered on 4 September 1930 from the H. C. Stülcken Sohn shipyard in Hamburg, Germany, based on plans drawn up by Josip Škarica, a naval engineer. Despite the fact that the Stülcken shipyard had not built a steel sailing ship since 1902,[4] the navy had ordered four small tugs from it two years earlier and had been pleased with the vessels when they were delivered."
Good idea, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As built, Jadran was constructed of steel [...] I don't understand the phrasing of "as built". Why is that clarification necessary?
Often ships' specifications change over time (this one's certainly did), so it is common to specify in Wikipedia articles what they were when built, and use only those in the infobox, then explain changes in the ship history as they occurred. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a cool thing I didn't know ^u^
All done thus far,
A. C. Santacruz. Thanks for your additional comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Don't have more comments Peacemaker67. Nice article :)
Thanks very much, your comments resulted in significant improvements and highlighted some assumed knowledge that creeps into ship articles! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'm looking forward to reviewing more of your work in the future ^u^. Enjoy your weekend!
Please ping me! 22:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Support by Nick-D

I was impressed by this article when it was at A-class review, and the changes since then have further strengthened it. As a result, I think that the FA criteria are met. The developments regarding the ownership of the ship will need to be monitored post-FAC, of course. Regarding CactiStaccingCrane's comments, I tend to agree that they don't reflect the content that is expected in FA-level articles, and removing the material as suggested would mean that this would no longer meet the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look, Nick! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

  • "Her ownership remains disputed between Montenegro and Croatia. In December 2021, Montenegro and Croatia agreed to form". "... Montenegro and Croatia ... Montenegro and Croatia ...": possibly tweak?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to the conditions in the Adriatic, her anchors and chains were made stronger than was required by Norddeutscher Lloyd." That doesn't make sense. (To me - a low bar.)
Not sure what you mean here? The Adriatic is a rough sea, so the chains etc were stronger than standard specs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's not what you have written. Something like 'were made stronger than was usually required' or 'were required to be made stronger than usual' would do it.
Ah, sure. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was located on the main deck as well as in a deckhouse located between". "located ... located"?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kiel in Nazi Germany". Why is Germany picked out to be prefaced with the ideology of its government?
Forgot to pipe as I have with Weimar Germany earlier. Piped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Germany had invaded Poland". Maybe a link?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eight officers, 36 petty officers and 108 sailors". eight → 8?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could Come Si Diventa Marinai be in a lang template.
Yep, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time of the capitulation". Perhaps insert 'Italian'?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jadran undertook two training cruises in late 1972 and in 1974". Unless there were four cruises in total, this is easier to read if "two" is deleted. If there were four, perhaps add 'a further two'?
yes, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jadran was awarded the Order of Merits for the People with Golden Star" Is it known when?
Not clear, but prior to 1983 (date of publication of the source). Should I add that much? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 2018, Jadran had visited Malta during a cruise." Suggest deleting "had".
I included it because the narrative has moved past that point because of concentration on the dispute. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not how I would have phrased it, but not a deal breaker.
Deleted "had". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Very nice. Looks like a labour of love. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Gog the Mild. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done now I think, Gog the Mild? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

Thanks Buidhe. Yes, it is superior even to the national newspapers of record in the Balkans, and takes a neutral editorial line. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see Večernji list is a newspaper, thank you for the link, saves me asking what it is...
Yes, a fairly good conservative-leaning Croatian and Bosnian daily newspaper. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find Freivogel, Zvonimir (2020). Warships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy 1918-1945. Zagreb, Croatia: Despot Infinitus. ISBN 978-953-8218-72-9 in WorldCat - result.? Wrong ISBN?
(talk page stalker) Apparently not. See [[3]] - click on "Author". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one thing I use to gauge a book's reliabliity is where it's held - if its in a lot of academic libraries or similar, it's going to likely be reliable and of a high quality... world cat's wonderful for that.. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, but it isn't always 100%, especially for recently published books. I have several of his books and several of his articles published in Warship and other reliable naval publications, and he is the most accurate and detailed source on Yugoslav naval vessels by a considerable margin and this book has an exhaustive bibliography, including a lot of sources only published in Serbo-Croatian and Italian. The ISBN is what is in the hard copy book, but there may be some confusion as it is the first volume in a two volume series, and Vol 2 hasn't come out, and there are several ISBNs for the series and each volume in the front of the book. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the IUCN and Reuters short footnotes - I know the link to the bibliographical entries, but you're referring to the publishers as the authors in the short footnotes - which makes someone who can't click the links have difficulty figuring out which bibliographical entry is meant. Suggest doing something like "IUCN editors, "Sailing to Barcelona – Saving the Planet? A Balkan odyssey to WCC 2008" (PDF). International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 January 2021. Retrieved 19 January 2021" for the bibliographical entry.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Note that I will be claiming points from this review for the wikicup. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review, Ealdgyth! See what you think of the above responses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck through the completed issues and left that one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Unwatching now! Ealdgyth (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2022 (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/Jadran_(training_ship)/archive1&oldid=1067838087"