Talk:Albona-class minelayer/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:Malinska-class mining tender/GA1)
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Parsecboy in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 18:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll take this one. Parsecboy (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I wonder about the title - Malinska was not the lead ship by any metric. I'd think either the Austro-Hungarian or Italian names would be a better option. For what it's worth, the 1906-1921 edition of Conway's refers to them in the Italian section as "Ex-Austrian MT class minelayers"
- I had wondered about that. Greger calls them "MT.130-class minelayers/minesweepers", but I'm also wondering about whether the fact that none were actually completed with that designation is relevant, despite what Conway's and Greger say? By rights, maybe they should be the Albona class, as that was the first one actually completed?
- Hmm, it could really go either way. There's the Almirante Latorre-class battleship example, which used the original name, despite the fact that the only ship completed as a battleship was finished as HMS Canada; on the other hand, we use the second name for the Pillau-class cruisers (instead of the original name, Muraviev Amurski-class cruiser). It looks like Brescia refers to them as the Albona class, so that might be a good option, given that as far as I'm aware, European practice is to name the class after the first ship completed, rather than launched (as is American practice). Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've moved it to Albona-class minelayer, and fixed the lead, but the move has apparently tripped the GA failometer...
- Hmm, it could really go either way. There's the Almirante Latorre-class battleship example, which used the original name, despite the fact that the only ship completed as a battleship was finished as HMS Canada; on the other hand, we use the second name for the Pillau-class cruisers (instead of the original name, Muraviev Amurski-class cruiser). It looks like Brescia refers to them as the Albona class, so that might be a good option, given that as far as I'm aware, European practice is to name the class after the first ship completed, rather than launched (as is American practice). Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I had wondered about that. Greger calls them "MT.130-class minelayers/minesweepers", but I'm also wondering about whether the fact that none were actually completed with that designation is relevant, despite what Conway's and Greger say? By rights, maybe they should be the Albona class, as that was the first one actually completed?
- What about armament for the Italian ships, apart from the mines?
- Added for the Albona class, they were almost definitely either the Armstrong gun, or the Ansaldo licence-built version, but I can't find confirmation. I can't find confirmation anywhere that the Italians replaced the Yugoslav ones, but if they did, it would probably have been with the same one as the Albona class carried.
- What about the service histories of the Italian boats? The 1906-21 edition has some details on their WWII activities on pages 280-1
- Added.
- Two duplicate links in the Description section.
- Fixed.
- File:Malinska.jpg - needs a US license tag. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed.
G'day Parsecboy do you have any other observations on this one? Thanks for your work on it so far. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder - I had meant to come back and pass the article earlier but got sidetracked with other things. Amusingly enough, deciding where to put the article in the GA list was the most difficult part - they ended up in the Italy section, since we decided on using the Italian name for the article. Parsecboy (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)