Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav destroyer Beograd/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [1].

Yugoslav destroyer Beograd[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beograd was the lead ship of her class of destroyers built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy in the late 1930s. During WWII, she saw action under the Yugoslav, Italian then German flags. This article went through Milhist ACR in 2017, and I have recently smartened it up in preparation for a run at FAC. This article is part of a Good Topic I am slowly moving towards Featured. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SR + IR by Buidhe[edit]

Image review—pass

Only image is freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 03:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—pass

Most of the sources are what you would expect to see on similar article. Voennyi Sbornik is a very sketchy journal (quite possibly predatory) but if the author has similar publications in legitimate outlets it can be allowed per SPS.

Yes, Freivogel has been widely published on naval matters in Jane's Fighting Ships, Weyers Flottentaschenbuch and Combat Fleets of the World among other reliable publications. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No source checks done. (t · c) buidhe 04:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, buidhe!

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • Per MOS:LEAD both the "Background" and the "Description and construction" sections are not included in the lead.
  • Italy and the Aegean and North Africa North Africa is too common to link.
  • increasing to 1,655 tonnes (1,629 long tons) at full load --> "increasing to 1,655 t (1,629 long tons) at full load"
  • bridgehead being established at Zara, an Italian enclave Pipe Italian to the Kingdom of Italy.
  • Link Dalmatian.
  • six motor torpedo boats were dispatched to Šibenik What's Šibenik?
  • She was commissioned in the Royal Italian Navy (Italian: Regia Marina) Italian is too common to link.
  • between Italy and the Aegean and North Africa Unlink North Africa.
  • in September 1943, the German Navy (German: Kriegsmarine) Like above German is too common to link.
  • According to Roger Chesneau, she was sunk at Trieste What's Trieste?
  • by Yugoslav Army artillery fire on 30 April 1945 Mention here that they weren't the royalists but were the communists. Officially Yugoslav Army was the in-exile-government in the UK.
  • Her standard displacement was 1,210 tonnes (1,190 long tons), increasing to 1,655 tonnes (1,629 long tons) at full load Link both standard and full load.
  • "1,210 t (1,190 long tons) (standard)" Link both tons and standard and full load bellow too.
  • Anti-aircraft guns in the body vs AA in the infobox. I know they're the same but you didn't mention that AA the abbreviated is of anti-aircraft.
  • "Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-185-0116-22A, Bucht von Kotor (-), jugoslawische Schiffe.jpg" When was this?
  • she was damaged by a near miss during an air attack --> "she was damaged by a near-miss during an air attack"?
  • Oh really? I have searched for the noun and it looks like by Ngram a lesser known term.
  • Despite the fact that three large destroyers were not going to be built --> "Although three large destroyers were not going to be built"
  • idea that Dubrovnik might operate with a number of smaller destroyers persisted --> "idea that Dubrovnik might operate with several smaller destroyers persisted"?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey PM. all look good except for the lead. Personally I do not prefer adding a background in the body nor lead in warships' articles. But if it's in the article then we should also use it in the lead. An example of things that should be included in the lead are: was she and her class part of a modernisation plan (programme), strengthen the Navy or did Yougoslavia made (and/or buy) ships to protect itself for a future invasion by someone? Or was it because the new kingdom had no ships so it decided to make a navy and her class is part of the programme? The lead itself says "during the late 1930s, designed to be deployed as part of a division led by the flotilla leader Dubrovnik", does this mean her class was the reaction of the expansions by Italy and Germany before or even in the early stages of WWII and was part of the defence plan? Another comment here is to link WWII. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day CPA-5. There is no standard structure for a ship article, I've used several different structures in FAs, as have Parsecboy and Sturm, tailored to the individual ship. Personally I don't think a ship article is complete without some Background, I think there is necessarily some repetition of what is in the class article to place the ship in its context. Others disagree, but there is no consensus as such. We can only include in the lead a summary of what is in the body. The main characteristics (main guns and speed) are often included in the lead of warship articles (Parsecboy does it, for example), and I've included the most important aspect of the background, which is the purpose for which the class was built (to work alongside Dubrovnik). That meets your suggestion that the lead needed to reflect the contents of those sections. None of the sources specify what threat the Yugoslav navy was considering at the time the class was built (otherwise I would have included it in the Background), although presumably given the contested nature of the Adriatic, they were built as a bulwark against Italian hegemony there. Realistically though, the Yugoslav navy was entirely defensive given the size of the Italian fleet. WWII added to body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Nb, it is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

For what it is worth, I have no issues with the choice and order of section headers; and it does not concern me that it is different from those adopted in some other warship articles.

  • It may just be me, but the opening sentence reads much more smoothly with a comma after "destroyers".
  • "Re-armed" means to me to be equipped with armament once again after a period of having none. Do you not want 'up-armed', or a more felicitous variant thereof?
Good points, these done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which gave her a range of 1,000 nautical miles" Is it known at what speed?
No, the sources don't say, which is mildly annoying. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yugoslavia's gold reserve, 7,344 ingots". Is it known what weight the ingots were? 12.4 kg?
Not in sources, I checked some other possible refs, but no dice on the ingot or total weight. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and 20 mm (0.79 in) L/65 Breda Model 35 guns were added to her armament" Is it known how many?
Not in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in order to augment her anti-aircraft armament". Do they mention with what?
Tweaked this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Preston et al not have an ISBN? (978-1844860036).
Very remiss of me, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I reckon, Gog.

Well up to your usual standards. A nice, readable little article. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Very readable. Just a few things.

  • " completing over 100 convoy escort missions in the Mediterranean under the name Sebenico, mainly as a convoy escort on routes" can we merge the "convoy escort"s?
  • "The endurance requirement reflected Yugoslav plans to deploy the ships to the central Mediterranean, where they would be able to operate alongside French and British warships." This strikes me as a bit obscure. Does "operate alongside" imply cooperation or combat?
  • "Although three large destroyers were not going to be built, the idea that Dubrovnik might operate with several smaller destroyers persisted. In 1934, the KM decided to acquire three such destroyers to operate in a division led by Dubrovnik.[3]" I might change "such" to "smaller".
  • "with a large part of Yugoslavia's gold reserve, 7,344 ingots," that's a fairly meaningless figure as an ingot can be of any size.
  • ". According to Roger Chesneau, she was sunk at the port of Trieste by Yugoslav People's Army artillery fire on 30 April 1945, and was raised in June 1946, probably to remove her as a navigation hazard, only to be scuttled a month later.[22] " I might cut the "only", after all, if she is only being raised so she will not be a hazard, it is not surprising that she would be scuttled or scrapped (I'd also remove the parallel language in the lede).
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All done(ish), thanks Wehwalt! Annoyingly, several sources mention the gold transfer but don't specify the size of the ingots. Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

@CPA-5: How are things looking from your end? Have your concerns been dealt with? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

I think that this might be my first FA-level review of one of Peacemaker's articles on warships. The article is in good shape, especially considering the limited availability of sources on this topic, and I'd like to make the following comments:

  • The lead should note when the ship entered service
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last and second last sentences of the lead start with 'she' - I'd suggest varying this
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The endurance requirement reflected Yugoslav plans to deploy the ships to the central Mediterranean" - was this a generic plan, or intended for operations against a specific adversary? (Italy?)
In general, the Yugoslavs had good relations with the UK and France until the late 1930s and a rivalry with the Italians over the Adriatic, but this seems to have been a generic plan. The sources aren't much help on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the idea that Dubrovnik might operate with several smaller destroyers persisted" - I'm not sure about the word 'idea' here - surely this was a plan and/or doctrine?
I've gone with intent, is that better? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Beograd class was developed from a French design" - was this based on a French destroyer class?
Not that I can see from the sources, and it must have been scaled down if it was, as the four French flotilla leader classes were all bigger. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence starting with 'When the invasion commenced' is a bit over-complex Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped the first bit. Better? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at this, Nick-D. All done? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @FAC coordinators: , this looks good. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay by me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Yugoslav_destroyer_Beograd/archive1&oldid=973209053"