Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav torpedo boat T7/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2019 [1].

Yugoslav torpedo boat T7

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a dinky little torpedo boat that served in two wars under four different flags, and ended its career during a run-in with some British motor torpedo boats in the Adriatic in 1944. It is the fourth one of its class to come to FAC (in addition to the class article), so hopefully I have ironed out most of the kinks by now. It is part of a Good Topic that I'm gradually moving towards a Featured Topic. I think I've hoovered up everything available on its career, including in Serbo-Croat, in terms of its comprehensiveness. Especially looking for prose improvements that could be made. Thanks to all who take a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

What we've here, our first FAC in 2019. Wow! Great start! Let's see how I can help you PM.

Is there a link for the Naval Technical Committee in the Austria-Hungary Naval Technical Committee initiated?

No, and when I looked for sources some time ago, I didn't find enough to assume notability and redlink.

Shouldn't the "Bocche di Cattaro" be Italicised, because it comes from Italian?

I don't think so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: May I ask you why not? CPA-5 (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. We don't usually italicise non-English place names. Otherwise a huge number of place names would be italicised, and that isn't consistent with the spirit of sparing use of italics explained in MOS:ITALIC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

on the Italian enclave of Zara --> on the Italian enclave of Zara (Zadar).

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "0 in" that important in a beam of 5.8 m (19 ft 0 in)? I don't think it is, or am I wrong?

rm in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the ".0" that important in Her guns were replaced by two 76 mm (3.0 in)? If not please remove it.

No. Removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the opened fire at 150 yards. how much is 150 yards?

converted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the At a speed of about 12 knots how much is 12 knots?

converted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be there a citation in the note?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

30 knots (56 km/h) for 10 hours. How much is 30 knots in miles? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this was useful. Again great start. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, CPA-5! I think I've addressed all your points? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Looks now great in my opinion. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Lead caption needs editing for grammar

Suggest scaling down the map. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both done. Thanks for taking a look, Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Appears the Cernuschi & O'Hara chapter uses an abbreviated range in the title, in the original

I'm not sure what you mean here, Nikkimaria? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We've got "1917–1918" in the article but the source has "1917–18". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Barnsley in Yorkshire or South Yorkshire?

Good pickup. South. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources generally appear reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

No DABs, external links OK
of the Austro-Hungarian Navy built in 1915–1916 Might I suggest "built for the A-H Navy during World War I" And then, later, "Completed in 1916, she performed..."?

rewritten along those lines. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giving the boat's full armament in the lede always strikes me as rather redundant and not a summary of the material in the main body.

Ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link sister ship and T3 in the infobox picture caption. In the infobox, link knots, nautical miles

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my objection to the full background section. It's overkill for a ship article and is much more appropriate for the class article. Cut it down to one or two sentences at most; this isn't a particularly complex situation that needs to be explained in this article.

Ship articles need to stand on their own feet IMHO, and I believe the Background section is justified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have a broader definition of standing on its own two feet than I do. Given that that's a pretty complete background section how are you going to expand on that for the class article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The class article Background section provides only the bare bones of the reasons for the class being built, as the rest of the detail in this article's Background section is drawn from the Description and construction sections of the class article, specifically about the T-group that preceded the F-group, as well as explaining the genesis of the F-group. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Put your cites in numeric order (how pedantic is that?)

They are in that order because Greger says 38 and Gardiner says 41. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move the link for the KSCS to the first use.

Do you mean in the lead? Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a class article for the T-boats? If so, link to it.

No, there are not sub-class articles for the T-, F-, or M-groups. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian 76L40 gun used by these boats is the Cannon 76/40 Model 1916

Linked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lede says she was destroyed by the RN, but the main body says differently.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, changed to British Army and corrected infobox as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over, Sturm! Hopefully I have addressed your comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

Prose looks pretty clean. I've copyedited a little; please revert if necessary. Some minor comments:

The first sentence only describes the period between 1921 and 1941. I know that's the majority of T7's existence, but surely we could get the dates of construction and demolition in the first one or two sentences? Either that, or (since you do give the demolition date later in the lead) make it clearer to the reader that the first sentence doesn't cover the boat's whole history.

See if my rewording works for you? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~You never actually say that T7 is one of the F group, though it eventually becomes apparent that it is. A half sentence at the end of the "Background" section would do it.~~

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~They were the first small Austro-Hungarian Navy boats to use turbines, and this contributed to ongoing problems with them: any details available?~~

No, nothing more in the sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A prose suggestion: Transferred in March 1921,[8] in KJRM service, 96 F was renamed T7 isn't very fluent. Can we change "she served with" in the previous sentence to "she was transferred in March 1921 to"? That's assuming the other three F-group boats transferred that month too. Then it could be "Renamed T7 in KJRM service, she and the other... were, at the outset, the only...".

Great idea, I was never happy with that. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Up to you, but I'd put the long parenthesis explaining what KJRM stands for in a note, and just make it "(KJRM)"; it's so long it interferes with reading flow.~~

I think the Cyrillic is surplus to requirements here, so I've deleted it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm not a MOSDASH expert, but I think it should be May–June 1929.~~

No, whilst the en dash in a range is nearly always unspaced, there is an exception when either or both elements of the range include at least one space. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See this; the wording is as you give it but you'll see February–October 2009 is in green, not red. I think the idea is that the range is February to October, and 2009 is an attributive of the whole range. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I was obviously looking in the wrong spot. It is a little confusing. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~her three former F-group sisters: why "former"? You use "all four F-group boats" without qualification later in the paragraph.~~

Removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~...were then captured by the Italians. T7 was then operated by the Italians...: repetition of "then".~~

Deleted one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~"NDH" appears in a caption but is not explained anywhere.~~

Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if a locator map of the Adriatic could be included showing some of the named locations. I can place Trieste on a map, and maybe Corfu, but Lake Prokljan, Milna, Fiume, Šibenik, Rijeka, and Zara are all going to be unknown to most readers. Not a requirement for FAC, but it would really help readers like me.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think unfortunately there isn't enough room, and view the NDH map with where she was destroyed as more important. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and support, because I think this is a matter of opinion, but I think if you used a locator map of the Adriatic rather than the NDH you could get all the locations in a single map. Unfortunately there isn't a suitable locator map of the Adriatic that I could find. This map on Commons could probably be cleaned up and used as one; I could try to do the cleanup for you if you like, or we could ask at the Graphics Workshop. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time I've wanted an Adriatic map showing both the Italian and Yugoslav sides, so I might just ask someone I know on Commons who does these things. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking this over, Mike. Let me know if the lead tweak works for you? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does. If you have trouble finding someone to make a map let me know and I'll have a crack at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There's ~~a debatable MOSDASH issue outstanding, and~~ a suggestion for an improved map; neither is worth holding up support for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, fixed the ndash thingo. Will do re: the map. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Placeholder Kees08 (Talk) 01:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Kees08. Nikkimaria has already had a look at the images (above), but feel free to have another look if you'd like. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I missed that. Only two images, so will do it anyways. Kees08 (Talk) 02:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yugoslav_torpedo_boat_T3.jpg - could you add the ISBN to the source on the image page? Probably not required, but I was trying to look it up and was not sure I had the right one.
File:Independent State Of Croatia 1943 Locator Map.png - NDH is not defined and I do not know what it means (ctrl+F for NDH on the page found nothing). Probably should say what country the map is portraying. Also, is it more northwest than where it is currently indicated? Google Maps makes it look like it is closer to the shore?

That is all, thanks. Sorry for the double image review! Kees08 (Talk) 02:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I worked off the Google Maps coords for Murter Island, which were in the middle rather than the northern end which is where the town of Murter is. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks for fixing those issues. Second image review is a pass from me! Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this looks good to go. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 31 January 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. Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 12 February 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.