Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yugoslav torpedo boat T8

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 Parsecboy (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav torpedo boat T8

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Another of the dinky little torpedo boats the Yugoslavs got after WWI. This one was sunk by German aircraft while evacuating Italians from Yugoslavia after the Italians capitulated in September 1943. This is part of a Good Topic I'm slowly moving towards Featured. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Possible to make the label on Dubrovnik larger? The map overall is a fine size, but the text is barely legible. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I lack the skills for this, I've tried to increase the size of labels to 75 from 50, but they don't change on my screen... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, PM, it looks bigger on my screen when I change it to 100. Does that work for you? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm wondering if the problem is in my preferences. Either way, fixed now. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: neat little article, PM. I have the following suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

knots is overlinked

I couldn't find this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, you fixed it with this edit: [1] AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there are no disambig links, and the ext links work (no action required)
referencing looks ok to me (no action required)
in the lead, T7 and the rest of the navy...: T8?

again, couldn't find this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You fixed it with this edit: [2] AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L/30[a] guns,: suggest moving note a to the right, e.g. "L/30 guns,[a]"

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

slightly inconsistent: "58.5 metres (192 ft)" (body) v "58.5 m (191 ft 11 in)" (infobox)

Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

during World War I, did the warship take part in any significant actions, or engage their enemy at all? If so, it would be good to expand the first paragraph of the Career section a little

Nothing specific I can find. No doubt she was busy, but no incidents worth recording. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

97 F survived the war intact: suggest moving this to the first paragraph of the section

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

made a very good impression while visiting Malta: suggest attributing this in text, i.e. upon whom did they make the good impression?

The Royal Navy. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia entered World War II when it was invaded...: "entered" or "drawn into"? "When it was invaded" makes it sound involuntary, so I'd suggest changing "entered" to "drawn into" if this is what is intended

Much better. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narodna knjiga: is it possible to translate this?

It is a bit clunky, but translates to "People's Books". Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done, AustralianRupert. Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too easy. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support

From the lead: "Originally 97 F, she was a 250t-class torpedo boat, she saw active service during World War I,..."; "she" is used twice in close succession.
Design and Construction: "The crew consisted of 38–41 officers and enlisted men.[2][1]": suggest reordering cites

I've left them in this order because the 38 figure is fn 2 and the 41 figure is fn 1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my support, but I think you should considering moving cite [2] to immediately follow the 38 figure. Zawed (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Design and Construction: The wikilinks for kph and mph should be moved to first mention in previous paragraph - it caught my eye because knots wasn't linked in this section.
Design and Construction: "97 F (later designated T8) was laid down..."; I'm not sure it is necessary to have the bracketed information in this section since it is introduced in the following section.

Other than the above, looks good to me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Zawed. Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Jane's is pretty much a straight reprint of the 1946/47 edition and hasn't been updated with newer information, so I don't consider it reliable. Replace it if you can, otherwise delete the precise tonnages of coal and fuel oil; I normally save that level of detail for the class article anyway.

I think Jane's is ok for something this basic where there is no contradictory information and it passes a sense check. I prefer to include such details in the ship article if I can. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else is properly formatted and is highly reliable within my language skills.
Pity that these boats are indexed in Rohwer under their original names. Be nice to have a better feel for their activities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Another Yougoslav article. Let me see what I can do.

sustaining 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph) for 10 hours I don't think km/h and mph should be linked.
The crew consisted of 38–41 officers and enlisted men.[2][1] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
a beam of 5.8 m (19 ft 0 in), and a normal draught Inch unnecessary same in the infobox.
one of which burned fuel oil and the other coal. You know I am not a specialist in Australian English but do you Australians use burned or burnt?
reduced their price by ten percent Is it per cent or percent in Australian English because I saw some Australians use per cent?

That's anything I think. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done, CPA-5. AFAIK burned and burnt are both acceptable, per cent and percent are also both acceptable as long as it is consistent in the article. Thanks for taking a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the game. It looks good however you forgot a spot. My comment about ordering the refs numerically here isn't addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, CPA-5. That is because the 38 figure is in fn 2, and the 41 figure is in fn 1. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how 'cause I am not with you? Please be kindly and explain to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The figure of 38 crew is from Greger, and the figure of 41 crew is from Gardiner, so I've put the footnotes in the corresponding order. I don't think there is any policy that says citations have to be in numerical order. Happy to be corrected. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, CPA-5 forgot to ping you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Hello PM I re-read and double checked MOS and FA criteria both don't say that citations have to be in numerical order. So actually no it oughtn't have to be in numerical order. But in my opinion it should because it doesn't make sence to see that. Of course this is just my opinion and there is (as far as I know) no official rule on Wikipedia about that. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It just isn't that big an issue tbh. I've put them in numerical order, CPA-5. Can you advise if you are supporting, as this looks ready for promotion if so. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good in my view. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.