Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Galeb-class minelayer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Galeb-class minelayer

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Galeb-class minelayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Galeb-class minelayer/archive1

This article is about a class of dinky Yugoslav mine warfare ships that were captured by the Italians in April 1941 and mostly lost in their hands thereafter. One of them returned to Yugoslav service and survived until 1962. It forms part of a Good Topic I'm slowly moving towards Featured. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

• they were captured by the Italians during the World War II Pipe Italians to the Kingdom of Italy.
• World War II is overlinked.
• by three German shipbuilding yards during 1917–1919 Pipe German to the German Empire.

  Did these. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Benghazi on 6 November 1942, and burned out Not sure about this one. Do Australians use burned or burnt? Probably both because Australian English is like a mix between American and British English. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

  We are nothing if not flexible. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• the Royal Yugoslav Navy-in-exile at Malta Link Malta.
• 7 km (4.3 mi) east of Djerba Island off the Tunisian coast on 19 January 1943 Pipe Tunisian to French Tunisia.

  Done these. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• In the infobox link both standard and full load.

  Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• No armour information?

  Too dinky for armour. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt review, CPA-5! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Looks a solid support from me. Great articl, nice job. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• In the infobox the reader doesn't need the number of cylinders or the orientation of the engines. He or she only needs number of engines and their type.
• 1916-designed design date isn't particularly important, and this looks awkward to me. A simple "wartime" would suffice, IMO
• The engine info is scattered throughout the description. Consolidate all them as if you were writing a separate paragraph.
• Move the L45 explanation to the first use in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

  All done, thanks Sturm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  GTG--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  G'day Sturm, would you mind checking the sources as well? This otherwise looks ready for promotion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Source review

(The nerve of some people, requesting a review for one of their own after merely reviewing dozens of my articles! ;-) )

• Why do you have all those additional people for Gröner? They're not listed in Worldcat so I question the need for their presence here.

  Fair one. Removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sources and footnotes are properly formatted.
• Sources are by well-known scholars and published by reputable presses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments support by Pendright

Nitpicking! Pendright (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Lede:

• ... the six unarmed vessels were purchased as "tugs" for the navy of the newly created ...

If tugs can mean tugboat, tugs might be worthy of linking?

• ... the remaining vessel was put into service by the Yugoslav Navy after the war, and was finally deleted in 1962.

In the circumstances, the word deleted seems an unlikely choice here?

Description:

• The Galeb class was built as 1916-designed M 1-class minesweepers ...

Consider the definite article "the" after as.

• They used two three-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines driving two propeller shafts, using steam generated by two coal-fired boilers.

Overall the sentece is accurate, but not expressed in the sequence in which the process took pllace. Simply put, the system worked like this:

The boilers generated the steam, the steam was fed to the engines, and the engines produced the power to drive the propeller shafts.

Service:

• The crew was increased to fifty-one.

From what number ... ?

• In 1938–39 Jastreb was fitted for oil-firing only.

In this case, would refitted be the more precise word?

• ... following an air raid by United States Army Air Forces aircraft on 30 January 1943.

consider adding "the" before the US.

Finished - Pendright (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pendright, I think you were reviewing this article, not the Schichau-class torpedo boat one, so I've moved this here. Thanks for your review, will get to this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

My apology! Pendright (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

G'day Pendright, all done I think. Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thank you for addressing the nitpicking, especially the one on boilers and steam. I spent a few years firing boilers in the US Navy when they still used steam on most ships. Thus, my comment! I’m happy to support this nomination.

Pendright (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.