Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 20:47, 16 January 2017 [1].

Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the flotilla leader (large destroyer) Dubrovnik, a British-designed ship that was the de facto flagship of the Royal Yugoslav Navy during the late interwar period, and saw service under three flags during World War II. She conveyed King Alexander home after he was assassinated at Marseilles in 1934, and was captured by the Italians at the Bay of Kotor during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia. As Premuda she was the most important and effective Italian war prize ship of World War II, doing duty on as an escort on over 100 North Africa supply runs. After the Italian surrender, she saw service with the German Navy as TA 32, during which she notably clashed with Royal Navy ships in the Battle of the Ligurian Sea. She was scuttled by the Germans at Genoa in April 1945. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki! [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67}} (click to talk to me) 00:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning Support -- recusing from coord duties, with the caveat that I don't know as much about ships and navies as I do about aircraft and air forces, but I have reviewed a few of these over the years and note that a couple of our more naval-minded editors looked this over at MilHist A-Class Review last year...

  • I think I've managed to cross-check everything in the infobox with the cited material in the text and it all seems to match except for one technicality: as obvious as the case may be, I couldn't see where the ship's naming for the Dalmatian port city was cited.
    • Good pick-up. I found the reference.
  • Prose-wise, pls let me know any issues with my light copyedit; outstanding points:
    • "and they had to build their naval forces from scratch" -- Is this strictly accurate if they had 12 modern MTBs, even if those do seem a pittance? Can we qualify as "ocean-going naval force" or some such? Alternatively, you could perhaps do without that bit entirely, as the pursuit of bigger vessels follows soon after...
      • tweaked with "almost"
    • "an expanded version of the British Shakespeare-class" -- "expanded" sounds a bit odd, do we mean "enlarged" or perhaps "enhanced"?
      • Good point, enlarged is probably best.
    • "In the late summer of 1929" -- Can do better than the seasonal reference from the sources?
      • The source isn't any more specific.
    • "she had been damaged by Yugoslav civilians prior to her seizure" -- I don't suppose we know their motivations or whose side they were on? Axis sympathisers, proto-partisans, run-of-the-mill anarchists, kids on schoolies...?
      • I'm guessing they were either patriots or Ustasha sympathisers, but Freivogel doesn't say.
  • Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
  • I haven't done a source review per se but could have a go later if no-one else does.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Ian. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now done source review and see no obvious formatting or reliability issues -- full support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Support - all my (minor) issues solved. Apologies for not updating earlier! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "naval forces almost from scratch.[2]" - This should be the end of the para, what follows is stand-alone.
  • "improved anti-aircraft armament" - same here.
  • "Her rounded stern was adapted for minelaying" - this could use some expansion. What about a rounded stem makes it suitable, and what sort of stem would otherwise be used?
  • "and 2,400 long tons (2,439 t) at full load" - para break.
  • "Her crew comprised 20 officers and 220 ratings" - and here.
  • "Her captain was Armin Pavić" - and here.
  • "and British ships" - and here.
  • "Yugoslavia entered World War II in April 1941" - this section seems like it should have some prior introduction. I assume that she took control of 1st flotilla some time before this, perhaps right from commissioning? If so, it should be mentioned there, not here.
    • The composition and allocations within the fleet varied in peacetime, the sources don't indicate if she was flagship of the 1st Torpedo Division at an earlier date. The key point here is to state what her deployment was at the time of the invasion.
  • " Freya early-warning radar," - Do we have a model number on this? There were several very different naval units. Actually, given the time frame and size of the ship, it seems odd it would be any of the Freya's because the Hohentwiel was available.
    • You obviously know more about this than I do. All the source says is that it was intended that she be fitted with a Freya system, which of course wasn't done in the end.

That's about it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's my thing. That and definite articles. Llammakey (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this one looks good to go. Can I have dispensation to put a new one up, please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying to this earlier, but I'm promoting this now so it's slightly academic! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 16 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Yugoslav_destroyer_Dubrovnik/archive1&oldid=760431798"