Talk:Uskok-class torpedo boat/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Question?
Are these two ships of the Uskok-class or Cetnik-class, I ask because the wikipedia page "List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy" refers to them as Uskok-class ships. Does that need to be changed? Mr rnddude (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think it varies between sources. Conways refers to them as Četnik-class, however, a Warship International article I have on the JKRM calls them Uskok-class. They are pretty obscure, and Google Books isn't of any help. I'm happy to call them by whatever the first completed vessel was. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Like Peacemaker67 pointed out, sources are somewhat scetchy about the class name. From the publications I have at hand, Jane's Fighting Ships 1933 doesn't even mention them, the 1940 edition refers to the ships simply as "Motor Torpedo Boats"; Fraccaroli's book on Regia Marina ships has them under "Motor-launches, ex-Yugoslavia, British built" while Conway's Fighting Ships 1922-1946 from 1980 lists them as the Četnik-class, but I've noticed that Conway's is also the only source which lists Četnik as the first completed boat. Conway's then takes another turn and lists the boat's Italian names the same as other sources do, Četnik as MAS 2 D and Uskok as MAS 1 D. I don't have the Warship International" article Peacemaker mentioned, but if it lists the boats as the Uskok-class, I would suggest moving the article to that name with a reference to the Warship International article, and also point out in the lead that the class is referred to as the Četnik-class in other sources. --Saxum (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- As you both say, sources are scarce and the ships are obscure. I just thought it was pertinent to bring it up. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'll add the Warship International reference later today my time, after which we can look at moving. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, the reference is Vego, Milan (1982) "The Yugoslav Navy 1918–41" in Warship International, No. 4, pages 342–361. The reference to the acquisition of the Uskok-class is on p. 349. Soon, I am going to use this source to improve the Royal Yugoslav Navy article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'll add the Warship International reference later today my time, after which we can look at moving. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- As you both say, sources are scarce and the ships are obscure. I just thought it was pertinent to bring it up. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've added the new source provided by Peacemaker in the lead section, made a mention about its other designation and moved the article to Uskok-class. I hope everyone is OK with that?--Saxum (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's great. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- All good with me. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Like Peacemaker67 pointed out, sources are somewhat scetchy about the class name. From the publications I have at hand, Jane's Fighting Ships 1933 doesn't even mention them, the 1940 edition refers to the ships simply as "Motor Torpedo Boats"; Fraccaroli's book on Regia Marina ships has them under "Motor-launches, ex-Yugoslavia, British built" while Conway's Fighting Ships 1922-1946 from 1980 lists them as the Četnik-class, but I've noticed that Conway's is also the only source which lists Četnik as the first completed boat. Conway's then takes another turn and lists the boat's Italian names the same as other sources do, Četnik as MAS 2 D and Uskok as MAS 1 D. I don't have the Warship International" article Peacemaker mentioned, but if it lists the boats as the Uskok-class, I would suggest moving the article to that name with a reference to the Warship International article, and also point out in the lead that the class is referred to as the Četnik-class in other sources. --Saxum (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Jarman ISBNs
The Jarman sources are volumes of the same series. That is why they have the same ISBN. I'm open to ideas as to how better to list them, but they have separate page numbering (ie the next volume doesn't follow from where the last one left off) so I feel like they should be listed as separate sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Rating
This is a featured article? No offense to contributors and research seems good, but readability is kind of lacking in my opinion with background, description, and construction in a monolithic section which could use subheadings. Ref coverage seems lean too, the 1st half of the "Service history" section is entirely supported by a single page of a lightly reviewed book, so we have to hope their sources are reliable. - Indefensible (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Really, Indefensible? No offence? It is an obscure subject from a part of the world few are familiar with, so detailed sources are sparse. Is it perfect? Certainly not, but it has been through reviews at GAN, Milhist A-Class (five reviewers plus sources) and FA (three reviewers plus sources). But good grief, we are all doing our best here, I hope. Do you usually make comments like this on other contributors work? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I mean there has been good work done on this article, I'm not saying there has not been. I'm trying to be objective though, if you compare this article to Macintosh Classic, Tessa Sanderson, and Magnavox Odyssey (which are the last 3 FAs on the front page), each of those articles have far more ref coverage. Maybe obscure subjects with thin ref coverage should not be FA. This is a decent article (better than any I've written honestly) but I do not think it should be FA in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with indefensible. This is the poorest FA ever. Readability is lacking too. Plus it's only 15K. How can this be thorough coverage? Just because few sources exist doesn't mean you lower the standards. SMH. There are no standards at FA anymore. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Really? An anonymous IP... Pfft. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: Really? Another pompous arrogant wiki editor making another dismissive comment about another editor. No surprise. Pffft. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Really? An anonymous IP... Pfft. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with indefensible. This is the poorest FA ever. Readability is lacking too. Plus it's only 15K. How can this be thorough coverage? Just because few sources exist doesn't mean you lower the standards. SMH. There are no standards at FA anymore. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I mean there has been good work done on this article, I'm not saying there has not been. I'm trying to be objective though, if you compare this article to Macintosh Classic, Tessa Sanderson, and Magnavox Odyssey (which are the last 3 FAs on the front page), each of those articles have far more ref coverage. Maybe obscure subjects with thin ref coverage should not be FA. This is a decent article (better than any I've written honestly) but I do not think it should be FA in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)