Talk:Silba-class landing ship-minelayer/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 22:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No DABs, external links good, images appropriately licensed.
Fix the length measurement templates as you're specifying 0 cm when you have fractional meter lengths/widths, etc. Be sure to consistently specify output in ftin.
Suggest that you link units for knots, nautical miles, etc. by adding |lk=in to the convert templates.
The template for knots automatically converts into English miles and kilometers if you don't specify output in km. So get rid of the output specification.
A little too much info for the infobox on the engines. Don't need designation, number manufacturer and type generally suffices.
What's the horsepower of the engines? And how many propeller shafts?
Add the armament to the infobox, since there were two different suites, probably best to add both with an "or" on its own separate line. See Wikipedia:SHIPMOS and Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide for guidance on the proper formatting of the infobox.
If maximum and cruising speeds are so close, then I wouldn't bother listing cruising speed in the infobox.
How much cargo/troops/equipment could the ships load?
Provide conversions for measurements on first use. Like 20 mm, 40 mm, 230 tons, etc.
Please be consistent about giving publisher location. Do it for all or none.
I think that many of these comments also apply to your missile-boat article. Make the changes there and I'll review it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Dank

The problem with calling a ship a "landing ship-minelayer" is that the boneheaded decision was made during WWII to call a landing ship for tanks (for instance) a "landing ship tank", so some readers will assume you're talking about a landing ship for minelayers. It seems to me the defining characteristic is that it's a landing ship; it's capable of carrying mines and lots of other things. Do either of you have a better name for this ship? - Dank (push to talk) 01:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have a strong opinion on this one although im sligthly leaning towards keeping the article name as it is. The "landing ship-minelayer" description is used in the designation of the ships themselves: DBM stands for landing ship minelayer (desatni brod minopolagač). Military journals such as the Hrvatski vojnik published by the MoD and the Armed Forces both describe the ships as "landing ships minelayers" and not just "landing ships". The same goes for BSO, the shipyard that built them; they use the "landing ship-minelayer" description in their reference list.--Saxum (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for explaining that. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I fixed the issues regarding the measurement templates, or at least I think I did. I'm still not that used to them so I would appreciate if you had another look if there is anything that needs redoing. Regarding the other remarks, I added new info about the propulsion (horsepower and shafts) and the ships carrying capacity, removed the excess info in the infobox and added conversion for armament calibers. I hope to do the same for my missile boat article in the next day or two. And thanks for taking your time to review the article. Please let me know if there is anything more to do.--Saxum (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I finished fixing the templates for you, so copy my changes over to the Koncar article.

Do you have a figure for how the ships displaced?
Be sure to alphabetize your news reports.
What are the references BSO, OSRH, Hrvatski vojnik, and Vojska Crne Gore to? I know that they're linked, but you should refer to them the same way that you have them listed in the bibliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the names of the references, except for Hrvatski vojnik because it's already refered to by that name and its the official name of the magazine. Translated it means "Croatian soldier". About the displacement, I wasn't comfortable with adding any info because every source I used in writing this article gives a different value.--Saxum (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me; I mean that you should refer to the notes to the other sources should be identical with the name of the other. Right now you're currently using Hrvatski vojnik, but there's no source with that exact name. You link it with the source shown as Brodovi ... but I have to look deeper into the source to see that it's an article in Hrvatski vojnik. Oh, and alphabetize your Other sources as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I got it right this time :-). If so I will proceed in doing the same changes for the Končar-class article.--Saxum (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]