Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yugoslav torpedo boat T7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav torpedo boat T7

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Yugoslav torpedo boat T7/archive1

T7 was another one of the dinky little Yugoslav torpedo boats that served under several flags over the best part of half a century. I've previously brought three of this class to ACR and hope this one is also up to snuff. It went through GA last year as part of a Good Topic. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: tidy little article, PM. I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there are no dup or dab links (no action required)
ext links all work (no action required)
in the lead, built in 1915–16, per the newish guidance at WP:DATERANGE it should now be "1915–1916"
slightly inconsistent: "330 tonnes (320 long tons) fully loaded" (body) v. "330 t (325 long tons)" (infobox)
in the lead, I wonder if there should be an albeit brief sentence covering the inter-war period
In 1917, one of the 66 mm (2.6 in) guns on each boat... --> In 1917, one of the 66 mm (2.6 in) guns on each boat of the class...?
In 1920, under the terms of the previous year's Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye: I wonder if it should be clarified what this treaty was about (generally speaking)?
but no other significant alterations was made to her.... --> were made to her
in the References, the capitalisation of the title for Jarman 1997b is different to Jarman 1997a
in the References, should it be "Barnsley, Yorkshire"? for consistency with "Slough, Berkshire"?

Thanks for the review, Rupert. All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very nice work on this article, I have nothing to comment on. Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

She was driven aground by British motor torpedo boats in June 1944 and destroyed to prevent her salvage. It would probably help to clarify that the British destroyed it so the Axis couldn't salvage it.

Added a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to inadequate funding, 96 F and the rest of the 250t class were essentially coastal vessels, despite the original intention that they would be used for "high seas" operations. I guess this is a comment on their seaworthiness. What exactly does it entail, was the construction of a lower quality, were more durable materials too expensive?

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the authors mention is they were subject to "chronic underfunding". I imagine that meant that the design adopted was cheaper and had poorer sea-going properties than a more expensive design, but I don't know of a source that says that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All my concerns are addressed. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Indy beetle! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria This one looks good to go. Would you mind confirming the image licensing is ok? I've used this one on other FA/A articles, so it should just be a formality. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, though I would suggest the URAA tag is redundant given the worldwide application of that UK copyright expiration. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.