Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/250t-class torpedo boat/archive1

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2017 [1].

250t-class torpedo boat

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 250t-class were torpedo boats built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy in the lead-up to and early stages of World War I. Almost all of them saw a fair bit of action during the war, but none were lost. They were divided among the Allied nations of Yugoslavia, Portugal, Romania and Greece after the war, with some surviving to see action in World War II. The last of them didn't go out of service until the early 1960s. The World War I section of this article has been expanded in recent months thanks to a series of articles in Warship magazine that provided details of their engagements. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Dan, as always! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

What makes http://www.niehorster.org/index.htm a high quality reliable source?

Niehorster himself has a Ph.D in history, and has several books regarding German and US orders of battle published by Military Press (UK) and held by libraries like Oxford University and the US Air Force Academy. Used quite a bit in Featured Articles/Lists already. I've found him to be highly consistent with other sources when it comes order of battle information.

Smillie, John (2012). World War II Sea War, Vol 4: Germany Sends Russia to the Allies. Dayton, Ohio: Lulu.com. Lulu.com is a self-publishing site - what makes this a high quality reliable source? Note the lack of library holdings also.

Quite so. Deleted.

I also note the lack of citations on a number of the notes - (a through f)

They were relying on the citation for the whole table, but I've added them to each note for completeness.

I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Flag_of_Portugal.svg needs a US PD tag and date of death for the creator

Date of death of the designer was already there (1929), added PD-1923 as it was officially adopted in 1910.

Technically, Greek flag should also include a tag for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the exact origins of the design are known, but the flag itself dates back to 1822 or something. Should I use a PD-1923? Thanks for taking a look, Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file is protected on Commons, so I've submitted an edit request. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

I'll review this soon. At first glance, the highlight duplinks tool shows a lot of duplicate links, but it also seems to be acting strangely lately, but maybe worth checking out. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it is acting strangely and counting links in the lead (which it didn't before if I understand it right). I'm pretty sure that's what the prob is, as this article was checked for duplinks when it went through Milhist ACR. I'll mention it to the script writers. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps footnote one could have a citation.

I'm working on WP:BLUE for that, it is a widely accepted measurement of the length of a gun barrel.

What does the name "250t" refer to?

Great question. It just appears to be the label they were given in sources, particularly Greger, although sometimes the three groups are considered separate classes and named after the first of each group. Perhaps it was a rounded displacement in long tons at the design stage, but that is a bit of a reach...

"and damage from accidents" maybe I missed it, but I don't think I saw accidents mentioned in the article body?

the collision between 74 T and 83 F.

"and refused to follow orders to sail to the Bay of Kotor" Why?

I imagine they were too afraid of being sunk by aircraft en route, but the sources don't really explain.

"She was either crewed exclusively by Croatian officers and sailors under German control,[1] or repossessed by the Germans on 14 December 1944 from the Croatian navy" Not sure what the either/or signifies here.

I'm trying to explain that there are two versions in sources. The first being she was always under German (Kriegsmarine) command but had a Croatian crew, the second that she was actually transferred to Croatian navy control and later recovered from them because they were considered unreliable (by the Germans).

Perhaps explicitly state there are two versions of events? A bit hard to understand as is. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Her crew came under the influence of the Yugoslav Partisans" In what way?

The Partisans were insurgents, who used propaganda and agents of influence to convince pro-Axis forces to desert and join them. Do I need to explicitly state that?

I was uncertain whether this influence was direct (actual partisans aboard the ship) or indirect (propaganda), so could perhaps be good to clarify if possible. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You there, Peacemaker67? FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, FunkMonk got distracted. Will sort this out in the next day or so. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day FunkMonk. Can you let me know what you think about the above (ie what tweaks are needed to explain things better)? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added two comments. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk addressed, I think. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - everything addressed, and some passages are much clearer now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian

I copyedited and reviewed at both GAN and MilHist ACR; a bit has changed since the latter and I've copyedited a little further but generally happy with rhe changes.
~~There seem to be a fair few duplinks -- do you have the script to highlight them and rationalise as needed?~~

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Ian. Thanks for taking a look through. The original Ucucha script is playing up (I've reported it). I am running User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js now, which is a tweaked version, and it doesn't pick anything up. Can you list a couple and I'll manually check? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, tks for that about Ucucha's script -- I was running that to check things so don't worry (now I look it's evidently counting instances in the lead as well as the main body) ... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this one looks about good to go. Can I have a dispensation to start another nom? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, no problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.