Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav submarine Hrabri/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2019 [1].

Yugoslav submarine Hrabri

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first Yugoslav submarine, made from parts left over from a British L-class sub that was never completed during World War I. Peculiarly, she had two deck guns rather than the usual one. Due to lack of funding for the Yugoslav naval arm, she had a quiet interwar period, being involved in a couple of "showing the flag" cruises only. When the Axis invaded Yugoslavia in April 1941, she was captured by the Italians. Given her poor condition, she was scrapped soon after. She is part of two Good Topics, one of which will become Featured if this nom is successful. It is fairly brief, but I believe it is comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

This is a very short article with prose length of 795 words, of which about 150 are in the lead section; so the unique text length is about 650 words: a short essay. Comprehensiveness is not the synonym for "covering everything presented in the sources". If the sources don't provide enough information, then the article is not comprehensive and should not be listed as FA. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is contrary to the definition of comprehensiveness, of "including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something". A subject can only be covered comprehensively to the extent that information about it is known. Its sister sub, Yugoslav submarine Nebojša is only slightly longer and passed FA four years ago without any issues on that score. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A stub/start class article can contain all that is available in the sources, but that won't make it comprehensive. Also what happened with the other article is irrelevant here.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it demonstrates a consensus that short articles can be comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I don't wanna get involved in this issue but, what I can say is, that the Lyon-class battleship (made by Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy) has only 13k (almost 14k) bytes which is also really short but it menaced the FAC on 13 October 2019. The text over there isn't that slightly longer than this one and it shouldn't surprise me that there wouldn't be more articles who are that short as this one in the near future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

lead boat of the Hrabri-class diesel-electric submarines built by Sea of blue.
Unavoidable in first sentence of a lead IMHO, but dropped diesel-electric as that set-up was the standard in the period. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yugoslav naval policy in the interwar period lacked direction until the mid-1920s,[1] although it was generally accepted that the Adriatic coastline was effectively a sea frontier that the naval arm was responsible for securing with the limited resources made available to it Split the sentence it is too long.
Not sure about that, but done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No link for HMS L-67?
Not built, so no. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
she had an overall length of 72.05 metres (236 ft 5 in), a beam of 7.32 m (24 ft), and a surfaced draught of 3.96 m (13 ft) --> "she had an overall length of 72.05 m (236 ft 5 in), a beam of 7.32 m (24 ft), and a surfaced draught of 3.96 m (13 ft)"
Am I missing something, they look identical to me? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is one "metre" who's written in the full word in the sentence while others are only written in the symbol of metre. Try to standardise them in this sentence. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I aim to introduce a measurement in full at first instance and use the abbreviation thereafter, unless the abbreviation is obscure (which isn't the case with metres/m). Which is what I've done here, and which is standard practice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

armed with six bow-mounted 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes --> "armed with six bow-mounted British 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes"
Well, the whole boat was British-built, until it was Yugoslav? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is but Britons use English units so in this sentence the English unit should be the primary. Because it is British we should add"British" in it to make it clear to other editors and the readers that we're talking about British torpedo tubes who use English units. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, the whole article is with metric first, because it was a Yugoslav boat (and they used the metric system). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Except for this sentence: Her surfaced displacement was 975 long tons (991 t) or 1,164 long tons (1,183 t) submerged which uses long tons as its primary? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Reminder. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done CPA-5, I must have missed this somehow. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No link for Nebojša?
linked in the Description and construction section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"60 metres (200 ft)" --> "60 m (200 ft)" in the infobox.
Link both tonnes in the infobox.
Those two done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. But it is a really short article, but there is no min. length required for an FA. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Part two[reply]

her crew consisted of 45 officers and enlisted men This probably during peace period but during WWII the should be a different number right?
Not necessarily, and the sources don't provide a larger crew size. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They were also equipped with two 102 mm (4 in) deck guns (one forward and one aft of the conning tower), and one machine gun This is for each ship right?
Yes. I think that is explicit in there being one fore and one aft. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sitnica again cruised the Mediterranean, visiting Alexandria and Beirut Due to this would become an FA I believe a normal reader wouldn't know where those places are, maybe add their countries in the sentence.
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In 1934, Hrabri again visited Valletta and the Kelibia Roads off the coast of Tunisia In my eyes the "again" is incorrect here. I mean the next sentence mentions a third visit to Malta so why shouldn't we use the word "again" not over there? Or you could use "In August 1935, Hrabri visited Malta for the third time; this time in company"?
Clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
on 6 April 1941, she was located in the Bay of Kotor along with the three other submarines of the flotilla What did she do in the coming days?
Remained in port by all accounts, as the sources don't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the Italian enclave of Zara on the Dalmatian coastline, but the mission did not proceed Because why did it fail?
The sources aren't specific on this, but I reckon the Italian air threat probably played a part. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She was later captured by the Italian XVII Corps at the Bay of Kotor.[5][18] She was given the number N3 by the Italians but was not recommissioned, and was scrapped later that year due to her poor condition What's later in this context this is a little bit vague? I mean the "She was later captured" when was she captured?
Reworded, see what you reckon? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also as last thing there is an error in Luković's source.
What is the error? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Well it is a 404 error on my screen is the source dead? or does it still works on your screen? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, they've moved the page. Fixed now. Thanks again, CPA-5! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. Just a query about one point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your responses PM. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else needed, CPA-5? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in this sentence, the light cruiser Dalmacija on a cruise to Malta are we talking about the island of Malta or the Maltese Archipelago? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified it was Valletta on the island of Malta. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is shaping up better now, CPA-5. Anything else I need to address? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a second review PM and I found some little nitpicks to address. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of things to check, and one query, CPA-5. Thanks for these additional points. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

I've looked at formats, verification and quality/reliability. No concerns were raised at the A-class review in 2015, and I can't find any now. Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

The sole image is appropriately licenced, captioned and alt-texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check. "All good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"coastal torpedo boats, torpedo bombers and conventional bomber aircraft" Optional: → 'coastal torpedo boats and torpedo and conventional bomber aircraft'
"10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) on their electric motors when submerged" Consider "on" to "using".
These two done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"and one machine gun£ Do we know where this was mounted?
as I understand it, it was stowed inside and mounted only when surfaced, but the sources don't say where. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"on a cruise to Malta, the Greek island of Corfu in the Ionian Sea, and Bizerte" Was this the order in which they were visited?
Yes, a round trip. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"She was given the number N3 but was not commissioned" Could it be made a little clearer that this was by, and then not by, the Italians?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A nice little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Comprehensive"?

For what it is worth, I consider that the article meets the criterion "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context".

In particular I am opposed to the idea that this criterion requires a minimum length or number of words. I could, for example, readily rewrite this article to be over, say, 1,000 words. This would make it a worse article, not a better one, and surely this kind of perverse incentive should be avoided. The criterion seems both appropriate and clear and I feel that it should be interpreted as it is written. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this article has all that is in the sources. Should be quite comprehensive on your standards, and worthy of FA. No? Based on your criteria, half of Wikipedia articles would qualify to be comprehensive. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are not my criteria; they are the FAC criteria. I have expressed no opinion as whether I think the article, or any other, is "worthy". I have said that the FAC criteria seem clear and that this article meets 1b. If you disagree, suggest a fact or detail which you believe it neglects, or explain why you don't believe that it places the subject in context. Alternatively, open a RfC to have 1b changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth giving Wikipedia:Very short featured articles a read. Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments support by Pendright

True, the article is short. So far, though, the arguments made on its behalf seem more compelling than any put forward in opposition. My comments follow. Pendright (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede:

Hrabri (Brave) was the lead boat of the Hrabri-class submarines built by the Vickers-Armstrong Naval Yard on the River Tyne in the United Kingdom, for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia).

Consider this: Hrabri (Brave) was the lead boat of the Hrabri-class submarines; built by the Vickers-Armstrong Naval Yard, on the River Tyne, in the United Kingdom for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia).

In this case, a semicolon is uaed to join the independent clauses because there is no conjunction.
On the River Tyne is set off by commas because it's not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
The comma before the word for was removed so it did not interrupt the flow of the sentence.

Have largely adopted your suggestion, have also trimmed "on the River Tyne". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Launched in 1927, her design was based on that of the British L-class submarine of World War I, and she was built using parts originally assembled for a submarine of that class which was never completed.

Remove "that of" - unneeded words.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...assembled for a submarine of that class which was never completed.

Consider this: assembled for a sumarine of the class that was never completed.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to World War II she participated

Place a comma after World War II - introductory phrase.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She was given the number N3 but was not commissioned and was scrapped later in 1941 due to her poor condition.

Place a comma after commissioned to join the clauses.
In this case, would recommissioned be the better word here?

Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Description:

It was generally accepted that the Adriatic coastline was effectively a sea frontier that the naval arm was responsible for securing it with the limited resources made available.

It was generally accepted by whom?
Place a comma after frontier to join the clauses.
"which" now would seem to work better then that after frontier.
The word limited is unneaded - available means "able to be used or obtained.

All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hrabri (Brave) was built for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) by the Vickers-Armstrong Naval Yard on the River Tyne in the United Kingdom.

"on the River Tyne" - same as above.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her design was based on that of the ...

"that of" seems unneeded.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Service:

Hrabri was launched in 1927 as the first submarine ...

Add a comma after 1927

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 1934, Hrabri again visited Valletta and also the KelibiaRoads off the coast of Tunisia, and in August 1935, Hrabri again visited Malta, this time in company with the more modern French-designed submarine Osvetnik.

Consider this: In 1934, Hrabri again visited Valletta and the KelibiaRoads off the coast of Tunisia. [New sentence] In August 1935, Hrabri revisited Malta; this time in company with the more modern French-designed submarine Osvetnik.

In August and September 1937, Hrabri, along with the other French-made submarine Smeli and the depot ship Zmaj, visited Greece, including the port of Piraeus, and the islands of Crete and Corfu.

Is depot ship worthy of a link?

Yes, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She was given the number N3 by the Italians but was not commissioned, and was scrapped later that year due to her poor condition

...recommissioned?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Have you forgotten these? Pendright (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Pendright, it fell off my radar. I'll get right onto it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Pendright. All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All cmments addressed - supporting! Pendright (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this nomination now has three supports, image and source reviews. I think the oppose has been addressed by other reviewers. Can I have dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 13 November 2019 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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