Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav torpedo boat T5/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) 20:01, 8 July 2017 [1].

Yugoslav torpedo boat T5

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a dinky little torpedo boat that started its life in the Austro-Hungarian Navy and served for nearly 50 years under four different flags. She had a busy World War I in the Adriatic before being transferred to the fledgling Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) after the war. She had a fairly uneventful interwar period, but once Yugoslavia was drawn into World War II with the Axis invasion of that country in April 1941 she was put back into service under the Italian flag. Handed back to the Royal Yugoslav Navy-in-exile when the Italians surrendered in 1943, she ended up serving in the post-war communist Yugoslav Navy until 1962. This is the third of this class to go through FAC, so hopefully I've ironed out most of the kinks. All comments and suggestions gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just one image, which seems to be correctly used and correctly licensed (assuming that the license info is correct, something I cannot easily check). For the ALT text however, I'd call that a medium-sized ship. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, alt text tweaked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth

I find no fault with the prose, and I don't see any MOS problems. This reads well. Coming at this as a non-expert, I'm not able to say for sure that it's comprehensive, but it appears to be. I noticed only one thing to ask about, as follows:

Background

¶1 Ganz & Danubius "reduced their price by ten percent". – Ten percent of what? It might be good to add how much SST charged per boat for the first batch, and how much Ganz & Danubius charged per boat for the second batch, if those numbers are known.

That's all. Finetooth (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Finetooth. Unfortunately, no source I'm aware of provides the unit price which was being discounted by Ganz & Danubius, just that the discount was the reason for the larger order. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to support, as noted above. You might consider adding, "a competing boatbuilder" after "Ganz & Danubius". That particular sentence was the only one I found a bit puzzling. Finetooth (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Freikorp

Well written and referenced. I see no comprehensiveness issues though I am not a subject matter expert either. An interesting read. Freikorp (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support from auntieruth

I went through this thoroughly at its A class review. The tweaks there have been useful. Not a subject matter expert, but I found this readable and clear. I've checked it twice with Earwig's tool. No reference conflicts. Prose is good, although some people continue to use "as" when they mean "because" but that's just me being twitchy, I suspect :0. auntieruth (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look, Ruth! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Everything is in order here. Everything that needs a citation has one, and all are to encyclopedia-quality sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this looks good to go, can I get another one started please? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 06:38, 6 July 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) 20:01, 8 July 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.