Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Zmaj (Dragon) was built as a seaplane tender, but was barely used in that role, being converted to a minelayer before WWII. Captured during the invasion of Yugoslavia, the Germans put her to use as Drache (also Dragon) and then Schiff 50, mainly as a troop transport, escort and minelayer. Interestingly, she was use for shipborne trials of helicopters in 1942–1943. One of the minefields she laid in the Aegean accounted for one Allied submarine and two destroyers, with another severely damaged, all in a matter of a week or so. She was sunk by British aircraft in late 1944. A long time between drinks for this one. Sturm brought her up to GA ten years ago, and has worked on her sporadically since, and I've recently added quite a bit from a new book. We reckon she's now ready for ACR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing mostly OK, but File:Flettner 282 airborne.jpg just asserts that the image is "USAF" without providing any way to verify that it was. As noted back in 2006[1] I don't think that's sufficient source information. I would use one of the other images in the category, or simply remove it. (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've edited a slightly awkward sentence, but can't find much else to comment on. The article is impressively detailed, and quite interesting. I have only one suggestion:

  • "but this did not protect her from being sunk by British aircraft " - I'd suggest replacing 'protect' with 'prevent' given the AA guns would have at least complicated things for the attackers Nick-D (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks Nick! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Added there. I have a lot of additional detail to add to a lot of Yugoslav ship articles as a result of Freivogel's recent books. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright edit

Greetings Peacemaker - I have a few comments for you to mull over. Pendright (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • Zmaj was built in Germany as a seaplane tender for the Royal Yugoslav Navy in 1928–1930.
"between" instead of "in" might be the better choice of words here?
No, because then I'd need to replace the endash with "and"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>The en-dash and the em-dash may not be as clear to some as it is to you so, in my view, between 1928 and 1930 is clear, concise, and reader friendly. Pendright (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between mid-March and May 1943 she was [deployed] employed as a convoy escort in the Aegean Sea[.] , d [D]uring which [time] she was damaged in a surface gun duel with a British submarine, as a result of which she was damaged and several of her crew were killed [or] and wounded.
See what you thik?
Tweaked slightly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In their service, she was renamed Drache, had her anti-aircraft (AA) armament improved, and was redesignated as an seaplane tender and later as a troop transport, in which role she participated in over a dozen convoys between the Greek port of Piraeus and the Greek island of Crete between December 1941 and March 1942.
  • How about -> While in their service?
  • Seems to read better w/o a comma after service?
<>No respones? Pendright (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't annotate every single change.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace the comma after Drache with a semicolon.
  • Can't because it would leave the portion after the semicolon without a subject.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>Right you are, the pronoun "her" is an object and not a subject. Pendright (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between mid-March and May 1943 she was employed as a convoy escort in the Aegean Sea, during which she was involved in a surface gun duel with a British submarine, as a result of which she was damaged and several of her crew were killed and wounded.
  • deployed would seem more appropriate here?
  • Add the word time after the first which.
  • Drop "of which"
  • killed "or" wounded
<>No responses? Pendright (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You duplicated your comments here and I responded to the earlier ones.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>My apology! Pendright (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • It decided that a [specific type of] ship was needed to transport seaplanes between the bases and rescue downed aircraft after operations, as had been necessary during World War I.
Consider the above change or something similar?
No other type of ship would have been suitable, so I don't think so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>You know this, but will the readership?

General char:

  • She lacked a traditional funnel as her engine uptakes were taken up through the lattice main mast amidships, which also served as the crane post.
  • She lacked a traditional -> I should think it would be "the" rather than "a"?
  • Isn't mainmast one word?
  • Zmaj was provided with six boats: two abreast of the bridge on either side; two abreast of the mainmast, one of which was a motor boat; and two dinghies on the stern.
  • My take here is that mainmast should be followed by a semicolon and no punctuation should follow motor boat.
  • I differ from your suggestion and the existing text and have changed all of the semicolons to commas. The last of which is necessary to set off the sub-clause "one of which was a motorboat".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some Australian sources spell "motor boat" as one word?
<>Here is what one source says about punctuation and lists: It is usual to use commas to separate the items in a list. However, when the list items themselves contain commas, you can "outrank" those commas by using semicolons as the separators for your list items. Pendright (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four 40 mm (1.6 in) 67-caliber Škoda AA guns were mounted between the bridge and the mainmast in a twin-gun mount on each side of the ship amidships.
Since amindships means in the middle of a ship - "the ship" could be dropped.
Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav:

  • While en route to Yugoslavia she had a severe engine room fire on 9 September 1929 off Flushing, Netherlands, and was forced to return to Hamburg for repairs.
  • Think about adding "it" after and?
<>In which case, the second clause is now a dependent one and a comma would seem unnecessary. Adding it makes the clause an independent one and so the comma would be fine. Pendright (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell the reader she was yet to be commssioned?
  • It would be redundant to the last sentence in the paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>My point: the reader should have been informed of this earlier and not later.Pendright (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These took almost a year and she was accepted by the Royal Yugoslav Navy on 20 August 1930.
Unclear?
Can you be more specific as it seems fine to me?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>If "these" mean the repairs(which I assumed to be the case), then the repairs were cmpledted before they were authorized? Pendright (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was finally commissioned in 1931 after she was armed and finished fitting-out in Kotor.[1][4]
You could add a comma after 1931 and substitute one she?
Agreed, a few too many "she"s in that paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be why she was converted to a minelayer the following year.
    • Change following year to “next year”
  • Following her conversion she made port visits to Piraeus, and Istanbul in Turkey, accompanied by the destroyer Dubrovnik and the submarines Hrabriand Smeli.
  • Add a comma after conversion?
  • I tend not to use commas for prefatory phrases.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the comma after Piraeus
  • Drop 'in' between Isstanbul, Turkey and replace it with a comma.
  • Zmaj served as the fleet flagship in 1939 and her crew witnessed the new destroyer Ljubljana run aground and sink in January 1940 at the narrow entrance to Šibenik harbor.
Add a comma after 1939.
See above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soon after this incident, Zmaj was herself damaged while departing Šibenik harbor when the strong northern bora wind blew her onto rocks, and the squadron commander ordered her anchor dropped.
  • Add a comma bstween harbor and when
  • Is bora wind worthy of a link?
  • Add the definite aticle after onto
  • One propeller was damaged, and she soon sailed for Tivat in the Bay of Kotor for repairs.
Replace and with but
"But" would be appropriate for contrasting the last clause with the first one, but there's no contrast in this sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zmaj was at Šibenik when the invasion began, and was attacked there by Italian Junkers Ju 87B "Picchiatello" dive bombers, but was only slightly damaged.
Consider adding "she" between but and was.
It doesn't seem necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>Who was attacked? Pendright (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German:

  • She was transferred on 27 December to the Aegean and reclassified as a troop transport.
Consider this -> She was transferred to the Aegean on 27 December and reclassified as a troop transport.
Agreed. I generally think it reads best to have the date after the location or action.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However Schiff 50's guns were insufficient to save her when she was attacked by several Bristol Beaufighters of No. 252 Squadron RAF on the afternoon of 22 September 1944 while anchored in Vathy harbor on Samos.
Cosider this version -> However Schiff 50's guns were insufficient to save her when several RAF Bristol Beau fighters of No. 252 Squadron attacked her while anchored in Vathy harbor at Samos on the afternoon of 22 September 1944.
Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General:

  • Yugoslav vs. Yugoslavia
Your usage of these terms confused me – in that I thought the first meant people and the second one meant country. Straighten me out!
Yugoslav is also the adjectival form for things belonging to Yugoslavia. Much like British is for Britain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you- Pendright (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thorough comments. I've signed my comments as Peacemaker may disagree with some of my responses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, but I would like you to read my responses to yours. BTW, disagreements often produce better outcomes. Regards - Pendright (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These changes are great, thanks for reviewing Pendright! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! Pendright (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

  • The last sentence of the first para of the lead seems quite long. Suggest breaking it at "in which role she...". Perhaps "In the latter role she..."?
  • The second and third sentences of the background section both start "It decided..." Can this be varied?
  • Yugoslav section:...blew her onto the rocks,... There is no antecedence for "the" rocks, so "the" can be dropped.
  • German section: She was transferred to the Aegean Sea on... suggestion for those readers less familiar with the geography of this area.
  • German section: It is likely that ammunition for her original 83.5 mm guns was scarce

Looks pretty good, just a few minor nitpicks. Zawed (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zawed, all done. Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • I'm not sure about the reliability or otherwise of the publishing firm 'Despot Infinitus, but if Freivogel was published on this topic in Warship International this should be fine. All the other sources look highly reliable.
Yes, I don't think there is any doubt about Freivogel as an author in this field, he has been published several times in Warship International, and they have excellent editorial oversight. The three Despot Infinitus books I have bought suffer from variable issues around copy editing and lack of indexes, but I have found only a handful of very minor factual differences when compared to other reliable naval sources where they intersect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1a (Freivogel (2001), p. 48) - checks out
  • Ref 1b (Freivogel (2001), p. 48) - checks out
  • Ref 15 (Freivogel (2001), pp. 53–54) - this material appears to be on p. 54 only, which gives "the night of 15/16 October 1943" as the date of the incident, not 22 October. Rohwer states though that the sinkings occurred as "between 22 and 24 October".
G'day Sturm, could you crosscheck this detail? I think you have both sources to hand. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Freivogel seems to have consistently mis-dated these events, so I've replaced the reference with better ones.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 16 (Rohwer (2005), p. 281) checks out
  • No close paraphrasing in any of the above spot checks, but some of the text is strongly inspired by that in the source. While OK, I'd encourage branching out from the sources further. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Yugoslav_minelayer_Zmaj&oldid=1037654771"