Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 November 2020 [1].

Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Yugoslav destroyer with a very short career. Commissioned in August 1939, just prior to the outbreak of WWII, she was about to be captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia when two of her junior officers scuttled her instead, killing themselves in the explosion. A French film was made in 1967 about her demise and the deaths of the two officers. In 1973, on the thirtieth anniversary of the formation of the Yugoslav Navy, both men were posthumously awarded the Order of the People's Hero by wartime Partisan leader and President Josip Broz Tito. Her sister Beograd and the class article have already been through FAC, and I think I've integrated comments made during those FACs into the current article, so hopefully most of the wrinkles will have been ironed out. The promotion of this article will bring the 36-article Good Topic Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy tantalisingly close to being promoted to Featured. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

edit

I'll take a look. Might be claimed for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 18:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description
  • How many steam turbines did she have? It's unclear
The sources aren't clear either, presumably two given the number of propellers, but can't say definitively based on the sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her sister ship Beograd had a range of 1,000 nautical miles (1,900 km; 1,200 mi)" - At what speed? It's somewhat important, as range can very with speed.
They can, but frustratingly, the range sources on the class are vague. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were the torpedo tubes above or below the waterline?
presumably deck-mounted (given I can't see TT doors on the pic and destroyers often had deck-mounted ones, again the sources are not clear. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where were the machine guns located? Presumably they had fixed mounts
Not generally, light machine guns on ships are usually provided with flexible rail mounts so they can stored in lockers to protect them from the elements and quickly mounted when the ship clears for action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • Add the launch date to the infobox, as the launch date is fairly important in the life of a ship
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Career
  • Where was it posted after its commission? We're not given any information between the commission date and April 1941.
Sparse info, but I doubt she did more than sea trial/shakedown cruise given the fact that the Adriatic was dominated by Italy and there was a war on. There is certainly no mention of anything in the sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • What's Niehorster's credentials? That website looks pretty self-published
Niehorster has a PhD in history, is a specialist on orders of battle, and is reliably published by Military Press, a special military history publisher in the UK, with about 20 books on orders of battle, mostly WWII. His website just makes his book content more accessible. Per WP:SPS "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". He has been discussed many times before and the conclusion has always been that he is reliable, and I've used him in dozens of FAs and FLs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concern struck. Hog Farm Bacon 22:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, I think. Willing to discuss any/all of these; I suspect some of the points I query related to information that just isn't recorded. Hog Farm Bacon 18:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Hog Farm. Sadly, some of the sources don't provide the detail we would prefer to see. This is often the case with smaller vessels, they just don't get the coverage of the battleships. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, then, since this covers everything that it can cover comprehensively, although I personally might have been reluctant to take this one to FAC if it were one my works. Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment is something I'll never take to FAC, just because some details, such as casualties, were never reported. Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I take a different view. IMHO if we are presenting everything that can be found in reliable sources on the subject, it meets the comprehensiveness criteria. How can it not? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, that's why I'm supporting. Maybe someday Slayback will get a shot at the limelight. For some odd reason, the Slayback and Landis' Battery articles feel almost like old friends to me. I sent links to the Landis' Battery article to several of my friends after it passed FAC, as I felt triumphant for some reason. Hog Farm Bacon 03:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG

edit

Pls ping me after Hogfarm’s excellent points are addressed, and I will look in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sandy, HF's points are addressed as best I can. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, will review tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

This is a very fine article. You may ignore my nits, but I'm picking at things that make for harder reading for a layperson; one goal is to engage a broader readership. Some of these questions are amazingly dumb; that's why I'm here :)

Can we mention the name of the film in the lead? The first thing I did was go looking for it, to see if I could easily watch this film, which sounds interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the lead is two long sentences. Reader interest can be held by varying sentence length. Maybe cut the second sentence in two, since it deals with two different subjects? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am lost on why three ships constitute a half-flotilla. Is a flotilla always six ships by definition? Do I find that in a wikilink?

A flotilla is a pretty malleable concept, it basically means a group of smaller ships generally of the same type. There is no fixed number of ships in a flotilla, but three would be a very small one and six would be around the usual minimum size, so this is where the idea of three being a "half-flotilla" no doubt comes from. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that this is the term the source uses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a hyphen between 120 and mm? Or can the whole thing be simplified by re-casting the sentence? There's a lot going on here, in terms of stringing together a lot of stuff understood to ship and armament people, but maybe not the rest of us, and that sort of thing tends to make the eyes of non-military people glaze over:

  • Her main armament consisted of four Škoda 120 mm (4.7 in) L/46[a] superfiring guns in single mounts, two forward of the superstructure and two aft, protected by gun shields.

or possibly ...

  • Her main armament consisted of four L/46[a] superfiring guns in single mounts. The guns were manufactured by Škoda, with a bore diameter of 120 mm (4.7 in) and were located two forward of the superstructure and two aft. They were protected by gun shields (say something about those here to help out those of us who have to click out to understand why they need to be protected, or how they are protected, or whatever ... )
Per MOS:UNITNAMES, no hyphens. I appreciate that there is a bit going on, but this is a pretty standard way of packing this together, and we generally rely on wikilinks to help out the lay reader (both in naval ship articles and elsewhere of course), so I'm reluctant to adopt your suggestion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several pieces of my suggestion may need to be ignored, because, Dummy 101. I leave it to you, but you get the idea. Less information in one long sentence, split out some of the numbers to different sentences. Realize that laypeople are having to click out to understand certain concepts. Maybe that's OK ... up to you. Part of what an encyclopedia does is teach readers new vocabulary and concepts, but not too much in one sentence ;)

Now here, we have similar, and again, you may to decide to ignore me, but to engage the layperson, take this into account.

  • The ship was powered by Parsons geared steam turbines driving two propellers, using steam generated by three Yarrow water-tube boilers.

At first, I thought Parsons-geared was a compound modifier of steam turbines, but missing a hyphen. So, after clicking on Parsons, I found it is a company, and wonder if this means they manufactured, licensed, designed (what?) the turbines, so maybe that part can be split to a separate thought (as above with Skoda). Next I had to figure out what a "geared" steam turbine is. When I go to the steam turbine article, I find that geared stands in contrast to direct drive, but while the article has a section on direct drive, I have to deduce that the others are geared. OK, so all of this is understood to all of you all, but this is the kind of stuff where the layperson gets tangled up and stops reading :) Do we need to explain geared vs. direct drive at the steam turbine article? Do we need a footnote in this article to explain the distinction? Or am I dumber than the average reader? (I just play an engineer on the Internet.)

I've more closely targeted the link to relevant section of the steam turbine article. There is no doubt that article needs work, and maybe a few of the naval coves will get together to improve it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now, in the lead:

  • Yugoslavia entered World War II due to the German-led Axis invasion of that country in April 1941. During the invasion, two of her officers scuttled her at the Bay of Kotor on 17 April 1941 to prevent her capture by approaching Italian forces.

I'm not convinced by the wording "due to". It seems that either "because" or "when" may work better. And I think the sentence may be laboring under the need to work in the Wikilinks. Yugoslavia entered WWII in April 1941 when the Axis powers, led by Germany, invaded. Then is, "during the invasion" redundant?

Good point, I have never been happy with the formulation. Changed, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine article; if you decide to ignore all of this, I will not object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this one, SandyGeorgia. See what you think of my responses? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My queries (not really concerns) are resolved. I hope to be able to find time to return for a more solid read so I can support, but no promises! At any rate, the prose is competent and understandable to a layperson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Sandy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. But there is one minor thing to look into. See MOS:BADITALICS, proper nouns are not italicized in foreign language (Royal Navy). This problem is a function of the language templates, and Jo-Jo Eumerus has figured out how to address this, but they are offsite for a while with computer problems. In the early 1930s, the Royal Yugoslav Navy (Serbo-Croatian: Kraljevska mornarica; ... I think we can trust that this will be fixed eventually, when Jo-Jo is back online. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support SandyGeorgia, I don't understand this point. MOS:BADITALICS says "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to, for example, in the lead when the foreign name is included in parentheses after the English name. Which is what is being done here. I don't think this is intended as a "means" guideline, but an "includes" one (meaning it is just an example, and not prescriptive), so such usage is not limited to the lead. If something else is meant, then the MOS needs tweaking. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)
Agree that it is unclear (the MOS always needs tweaking :) ... this is not a problem in terms of promotion, just something to watch for and sort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can fix it with |italic=no but if it's unclear that it's needed I'd like to see a consensus that the italics are inappropriate here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah- ha! IIRC, I tried to fix it, but I put italics= no rather than italic. So now I know; thanks, Jo-Jo. At any rate, in this case I am not too concerned, as it is unclear if it is "words as words" or proper noun stand-alone. I am more concerned that editors are aware of this in italic-heavy articles. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit

Only image is freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

I looked at this for ACR. Let's see if I can find anything else to nit pick at.

  • "Soon after she was ordered, the onset of the Great Depression meant that only one ship of the planned half-flotilla was ever built." So you and I can have a good guess as to how one led to the other, but perhaps worth stating?
Good point, added a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to Luković seems to be dead.
fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1973, on the thirtieth anniversary of the establishment of the Yugoslav Navy". Almost certainly my misconception, but I had thought that the Yugoslav Navy was established in 1945.
Actually the Yugoslav Navy article is in poor shape and doesn't reflect the WWII origins of the service as the Yugoslavian People's Liberation Navy. It had previously been a section of the Yugoslavian People's Liberation Army (the Partisans) when it was created on 18 December 1942. The Yugoslavs considered it to be established as a separate service on 18 October 1943, when with the collapse of the Italians the Partisans really started to generate a good-sized fleet of ad hoc armoured and armed fishing trawlers in the initial vacuum the Italians left. The newly independent navy then started bothering the Germans in the Adriatic. It was renamed the Yugoslav Navy on 1 March 1945, when the Partisans became the Yugoslav Army. I must give the Yugoslav Navy article some TLC at some stage to reflect this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going by the Wiki article, although I couldn't tell you where I picked up the misconception. But yes, like so many articles it looks as if it could do with a bit of "fine tuning".

And that's all I have. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Amanuensis Balkanicus

edit
It was the wording used on the tally bands of the sailor's caps, per [2], in the same way as the Royal Navy and is also used in the naval laws per [3]. Deroc's British Special Operations Explored: Yugoslavia in Turmoil, 1941-1943, and the British Response, p. 6 also explains that is was officially known as the Kraljevska mornarica. The previous Serbo-Croatian names have been translations of the descriptive article title in English. I have yet to go through and change it in all the KM articles and cite them to Deroc, but I'll get to it shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

edit

Greetings PM - a few minor suggestions/comments. Pendright (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • During the invasion, two of her officers scuttled her at the Bay of Kotor on 17 April 1941 to prevent her capture by approaching Italian forces.
Consider one less her: -> During the invasion, [she was scuttled by] two of her officers scuttled her at the Bay of Kotor.
Much more elegant. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • ... which involved building large destroyers similar to the World War I British Royal Navy V and W-class destroyers.[1] In the interwar French Navy, these ships were intended to operate as half-flotillas of three ships, or with one flotilla leader operating alongside several smaller destroyers.
"these ships" -> This seems to imply they are of the British V and W-class types. In which case, isn't a reader left to assume this type of warship was also in use by te French Navy?
flotilla leaders. I think I've clarified now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Career

  • On 16 April, the ship's crew were informed of the imminent surrender of the Yugoslav armed forces, and were ordered not to resist the enemy any further.
  • In American English, collective nouns (such as crew) take only a singular verb, but in British, Canadian, and Australian English, they can take a singular or plural verb. -> If the Australian part is correct, when is one used over the other?
I really am not entirely sure which is correct, but changed it to "crew was", as a crew is a single unit of people. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were ordered" -> were can be dropped!
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the ship sank to the bottom of the bay, while portions of it that remained on the surface burned over the following days
Consider this change: -> Most of the ship sank to the bottom of the bay, while [the] portions of it that remained on the surface burned over the following days.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film was partly filmed on location in Yugoslavia, and was released in France in 1968.
As far as you are aware:
  • Was France the only county where the film was released?
According to the source, although it seems likely that it could have been released in Yugoslavia given the subject matter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the film receive any pubnlicity or public comment?
I haven't been able to find any. There might be some in French newspapers, but it might be beyond my skills. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Pendright, I've done what I can. As always, thanks for taking a look at my work, your feedback is uniformly excellent. See what you think? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: All good! It’s always a plea sure to interact with you – whether you agree or disagree with the comments before you, your responses to them are always logical and civil. Happy to support! Pendright (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

edit
  • Not much to say here after all the previous commenters, but it seems very odd to see construction info lumped into the same paragraph as her armament. It should be in its own paragraph.
  • Link sister ship on first use.
  • It's Hazemeyer, not Hazemayer, see Thales Nederland.
  • Whitley, Preston, Lenton and Friedman need authorlinks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All done, thanks for taking a look, Sturm! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Nick-D - passed

edit

Largely a placeholder until tomorrow, but a couple of questions:

  • What does the 'Yugoslavia Political Diaries 1918–1965' series comprise? Are these primary sources?
They are primary sources, and consist of edited reports of British diplomats posted to Yugoslavia. I generally only use them for factual stuff, not opinions. If necessary, in the case of fn 3 I could say that the information about the Yugoslav intent was reported by the British naval attache, but the other stuff is mere fact (ie when she was laid down, who made her fire-control system etc), nothing at all controversial or likely to be challenged. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That should be fine. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fond of Leo Niehorster's websites and work, but are we confident that he (and as a result his personal website) is clearly reliable source per Wikipedia's rules? Some of his books have been published by the rather dubious firm Axis Europa, though others have been published by reputable firms. Has his website been cited by reliable sources? Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern re: Axis Europa, but that was in the 90s, he moved to Military Press after 2000. He has a PhD in history, and is reliably published multiple times in his area of specialisation (ORBATs) by Military Press, so meets the "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" of WP:SPS. His website just makes his hard-copy published work more accessible to the public. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Military Press is a respected publisher. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments on sources

  • Are you confident that Voennyi Sbornik is a reputable journal? I'm not at all familiar with Russian journals, but the resort city of Sochi seems an unusual place for a journal to operate out of.
I think it is OK, as Sydney Uni, UQ, QUT, CSU etc all hold copies, but this is reinforced by Freivogel being the author, he is widely and reliably published on Yugoslav ships in the Warship series of publications, and independently by reputable publishers in Croatia and Germany. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are mainstream, Cafe del Montenegro is a little tabloidish, but ok for what is it is being used for. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

  • Reference 12 (Freivogel & Grobmeier 2006): Confirms that the 40mm guns for this class of destroyers were produced by Škoda, but doesn't say that four were fitted. Whitley 1988, p. 312 gives the number four though, so I think that the references should be re-arranged here.
Put both at the end of the sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 13a and b (Whitley 1988): 13a checks out, 13b checks out (including the unusual absence of an exact date for commissioning)
  • Reference 16 (Niehorster 2016): Confirms that the ship was assigned to the 1st Torpedo Division, but doesn't state that it was at the Bay of Kotor: rather it states that the division's HQ was there. This is a minor difference, but please adjust.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 18a and b (Maritime Museum of Montenegro 2007): 18a seems OK, 18b checks out. ~
  • As some obscure references checked above are OK with only very minor tweaks being needed, I'm comfortable that the other references are also fine. Nick-D (talk)
Thanks for taking a look, Nick-D. See what you think of my responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those responses look good, and I'm happy to support on sourcing here. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this now has three supports, image and source reviews, and SandyGeorgia (a non-Milhist member) has had a look, along with two more editors. Looks pretty much good to go. Could I please have a dispensation for a fresh nom? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that seems to cover all the bases, feel free. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: this one could do with a close if you get the chance. The one I nominated after this is also ready for a close, and naturally you won't let me have three running at the same time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but is there an unwritten policy about FACs having to be open for a month? Because it isn't apparent to me why this hasn't been promoted. It has had more than enough for a pass for more than two weeks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like to see FACs left open for at least two to three weeks so our reviewer base has time to look them over but there's no policy about how long things must remain open -- BTW for whatever reason I didn't get the 8 Nov ping, just this latest, so happy to have a look now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2020 (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/Yugoslav_destroyer_Zagreb/archive1&oldid=989241985"