Talk:NMS Amiral Murgescu/GA1
Latest comment: 6 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) 17:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll take this for review. Parsecboy (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- The lead is pretty short, and doesn't really summarize the entire article.
- "most successful" - there's no citation for this, and it's not mentioned again in the body of the article. Ditto for the other claims in the lead, about being the first warship built in Romania and the largest Romanian warship of WWII.
- Citation for the ship's namesake?
- All the figures in the description section need to be converted
- Additionally, lots of nautical terms there need to be linked - draft (ship), beam (nautical), displacement (ship), naval mine, depth charge, Dual-purpose gun, Lewis gun, Oerlikon 20 mm cannon, 3.7 cm Flak 18/36/37/43, Krupp, diesel engine. I'd also redlink Soviet destroyer leader Moskva and the three Soviet submarines
- Any record of her commissioning date? Or activity between then and 1941?
- Are we sure on the 102mm gun? Bofors made a 105mm gun - it's unlikely they'd have made both.
- Lots of duplicate links - there's a script here you can install to help you find them
- The first two images need to go - there's no evidence that they're PD in the United States, and it's unlikely that they are. Only the Bundesarchive photo is usable.
- The citations need a lot of work - many are lacking details, others are duplicated, and others aren't reliable sources (specifically, Navypedia). I would recommend using a template like {{sfn}} to convert everything to short citations, as this is much cleaner than repeating the full citation every time, and the template helps to identify citation problems. Parsecboy (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Your observations have been noted, I will address them in the near future. Regards. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Take your time, there's no rush. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Update 1: I added US licencing tags on the two pictures. Can you please check and tell me if they still have to be removed in order to get GA? Brown Water Admiral (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- The biggest problem is the lack of original publication and author information. Without either of those pieces of information, we can't prove the photo is PD in Romania, or in the US. It's altogether possible that the second photo wasn't actually published until the book it's sourced to was published in 2000, in which case the term hadn't even started on the URAA date (1996), let alone expired - photos like these are frequently left unpublished in government archives, and without an earlier publication date, we have no way of knowing if that was the case here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- I understand. I think the second pic is removable, kind of blurry too as well. But let me ask, if I manage to do the text part right, is the removal of the infobox pic mandatory for GA status? The Bundesarchiv photo, although a colored high-quality one, only shows the rear of the warship. Not a very representative pic. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, unfortunately - the GA criteria require the images used in an article be in compliance with the relevant copyright laws. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Well that's a mood killer. I will determine eventually if her chance for GA status is worth removing a very descriptive image. But right now, I would like to talk her designation. You see, while the source does ascribe her the role of convoy escort, it doesn't specifically call her a destroyer escort. Please hear me out. I've checked what a WW2 frigate means, then looked at the kaibokan, and finally at the destroyer escort. And the latter, it just fits her like a glove: She is a warship of little over 1000 tons, with ~20 knots top speed, and plenty of AA and anti submarine armament. And I thought, why calling her merely an escort ship, when the destroyer escort "shoes" fit her so well? She's not a frigate because those are designed to be cheaply made and even have merchant standards of construction, which is clearly not her case. She can't be called a kaibokan either, well firstly because she isn't Japanese, but those are also too heavily-armed. So I settled for destroyer escort. Also, I find the term "minelayer" to be more of a trait than a classification. You can make a minelayer out of anything: cruiser, gunboat, submarine - you name it. If the ship does more than minelaying, she should be referred also by her other activity. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- In general we should follow what sources say. I had a look at Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships and they class the ship as a minelayer. Are there other sources that refer to the ship as a specific ship type? Parsecboy (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Warship International 2001-2002 does mention her as a convoy escort. I corrected this in the article as well, but still I felt compelled to add that she represents the Romanian version of the destroyer escorts or the Kaibokan. She has the role, the size and the armament. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Have you made a decision on the photos? If I haven't heard anything in a couple of days, I'll close the review. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Warship International 2001-2002 does mention her as a convoy escort. I corrected this in the article as well, but still I felt compelled to add that she represents the Romanian version of the destroyer escorts or the Kaibokan. She has the role, the size and the armament. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- In general we should follow what sources say. I had a look at Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships and they class the ship as a minelayer. Are there other sources that refer to the ship as a specific ship type? Parsecboy (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Well that's a mood killer. I will determine eventually if her chance for GA status is worth removing a very descriptive image. But right now, I would like to talk her designation. You see, while the source does ascribe her the role of convoy escort, it doesn't specifically call her a destroyer escort. Please hear me out. I've checked what a WW2 frigate means, then looked at the kaibokan, and finally at the destroyer escort. And the latter, it just fits her like a glove: She is a warship of little over 1000 tons, with ~20 knots top speed, and plenty of AA and anti submarine armament. And I thought, why calling her merely an escort ship, when the destroyer escort "shoes" fit her so well? She's not a frigate because those are designed to be cheaply made and even have merchant standards of construction, which is clearly not her case. She can't be called a kaibokan either, well firstly because she isn't Japanese, but those are also too heavily-armed. So I settled for destroyer escort. Also, I find the term "minelayer" to be more of a trait than a classification. You can make a minelayer out of anything: cruiser, gunboat, submarine - you name it. If the ship does more than minelaying, she should be referred also by her other activity. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, unfortunately - the GA criteria require the images used in an article be in compliance with the relevant copyright laws. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- I understand. I think the second pic is removable, kind of blurry too as well. But let me ask, if I manage to do the text part right, is the removal of the infobox pic mandatory for GA status? The Bundesarchiv photo, although a colored high-quality one, only shows the rear of the warship. Not a very representative pic. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- The biggest problem is the lack of original publication and author information. Without either of those pieces of information, we can't prove the photo is PD in Romania, or in the US. It's altogether possible that the second photo wasn't actually published until the book it's sourced to was published in 2000, in which case the term hadn't even started on the URAA date (1996), let alone expired - photos like these are frequently left unpublished in government archives, and without an earlier publication date, we have no way of knowing if that was the case here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Update 1: I added US licencing tags on the two pictures. Can you please check and tell me if they still have to be removed in order to get GA? Brown Water Admiral (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Take your time, there's no rush. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Since there hasn't been any movement on this, I've gone ahead and closed the review. I'll be unwatching this page now, so if you have any further comments, ping me or leave me a message on my talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)