Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yugoslav torpedo boat T4

< 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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav torpedo boat T4 edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Only two more of these dinky little Yugoslav torpedo boats to get through ACR now. This one had a busy WWI in the Adriatic with the Austro-Hungarian Navy, but didn't make it to WWII, running aground on the Dalmatian coast in 1932, and becoming a total loss. Part of the 36-article Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic I'm slowly moving towards Featured. Hopefully most of the rough edges have been ground off through the reviews of her sister boats, which I am pretty sure I have transferred to this one. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, PM, hope you are well and can enjoy some semblance of a happy Easter -- I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • everything in the infobox appears to be covered in the body (no action required)
  • sources appear to be reliable based upon authors or publishers (no action required)
  • tonnes and long tons is overlinked in the description section
  • in the lead, I wonder if some of the dates should be mentioned: laid down, launched or commissioned?
  • suggest adding links for officers, enlisted
  • In 1917, one of her 66 mm guns was placed -- suggest clarifying which ship this is, as Orjen is the last one mentioned by name, so "her" is potentially ambiguous
  • other than the placement of the 66 mm gun, do we know what the boat did during 1917?
  • do we have any idea what the ship did between 1918 and 1920, or at least specifically June to November 1918?
  • Due to inadequate funding,79T and the rest of the 250t class were essentially coastal vessels: I wonder if this could be teased out a little more. I assume the lack of funding meant that certain design features that were originally planned didn't come to fruition, and that these affected sea keeping?
  • the source doesn't go into depth, but presumably things like seakeeping etc were affected by limitations on displacement etc. Added that it was the class that was underfunded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and this contributed to ongoing problems with them: did inexperience with the turbines resulted in poor maintenance?
  • Again, the source doesn't go into depth, but I suppose like anything new, it takes time for crews and maintenance staff to get used to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1914, one 8 mm (0.31 in) machine gun was added: was this MG used for close-in defence?
  • do we know what caused the ship to run aground? Crew error? Were there any consequences?
  • No, unfortunately the usual sources provide no detail, and presumably she was too small to rate overseas news picking up the story, as I couldn't find anything on Trove. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we know the exact date the ship ran aground?
  • "File:Austro-Hungarian torpedo boat 81T NH 87683.tif": the date given is "before 1921", but the source page says that the ship is returning with the crew of the sunken cruiser Zenta, so it is more likely c. early 1916, surely, as that was when the crew were freed?
  • page range for Cernuschi & O'Hara's chapter in Tucker?
  • Sorry, I meant in the References; compare Cernuschi & O'Hara 2015 with Cernuschi & O'Hara 2014 (one has a page range, and one doesn't). I have added this now -- please check this is correct. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, AustralianRupert! I think I've addressed everything I can. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

  • could sail from the Austro-Hungarian Navy (German: kaiserliche und königliche Kriegsmarine) Unlink German.
  • base at the Bay of Kotor (Bocche di Cattaro) to the Strait during darkness In which language was this?
  • displaced about 320 tonnes (315 long tons) fully loaded --> "displaced about 320 t (315 long tons) fully loaded"
  • They carried 18 tonnes (17.7 long tons) of coal and 24 tonnes (23.6 long tons) of fuel oil --> "They carried 18 t (17.7 long tons) of coal and 24 t (23.6 long tons) of fuel oil"
  • Can you also add Hungerian in the Austro-Hungarian Navy language template?
  • 79T and the rest of the 250t class were essentially --< "79 T and the rest of the 250t class were essentially"
  • The former has no space while the latter has a space.
  • On the night of 31 May – 1 June 1916 --> "On the night of 31 May/1 June 1916"
  • 79 T survived the war intact Begin of a sentence.
  • I better not prefer. A lot of sources say try to avoid starting a number's symbol at the start of the sentence. I believe a number is a number even it is part of a name. I believe we should use a number's symbol at the start of a sentence as the last option; here we can easily replace it with "she" (which isn't that much used in this article). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you also do the same with this sentence 79 T was laid down on 1 December 1913,? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Serbo-Croatian Latin: Kraljevska Jugoslovenska Ratna Mornarica, KJRM; Краљевска Југословенска Ратна Морнарица) Maybe add Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic?
  • The ships and crews made a very good impression Maybe add a "their" after "and"?
  • Link full load in the infobox.

Okay that's it I think. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5, just one query. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As always you're welcome mate. ;) Answered that lonely query of yours. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

The sole image is appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Zawed edit

  • In the infobox, should that be "enlisted men"?
  • "The 250t-class, T-group were..." is that comma supposed to be there or should there be another one after T-group?
  • "On the night of 31 May/1 June 1916...": I initially read this as being as part of the work of the force mentioned in the previous sentence but then it seems to be a different action altogether. I suggest putting this content as a separate paragraph (admittedly, quite a short para).
  • "...four 250t-class F-group boats" is there a convenient link for the F-group boats?
  • Only a section link in the class article, which is already linked. I could add it if you think it would be helpful? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see I had missed the first mention of the F-group boats in the description. No, if it is part of the 250t class page, should be fine. Zawed (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A nice tidy article, only a few things that I was able to nitpick. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Zawed, except one query. Thanks for taking a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with this, adding my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Sources are formatted consistently in an appropriate style.
  • Spotcheck on "Cernuschi, Enrico & O'Hara, Vincent P. (2014)." confirms that it is correctly sourcing the stated fact.
  • No other spotchecks for accuracy or copyvio carried out, as trusted nominator, and sources are offline.
  • All citations are to reliable sources.

No problems here, this is good from a sourcing point of view. Harrias talk 06:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking a look, Harrias! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 27 April 2020 (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_torpedo_boat_T4&oldid=953578007"