Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Uskok-class torpedo boat

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Uskok-class torpedo boat[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Uskok-class torpedo boat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about the Uskok or Četnik class of motor torpedo boats built for the Yugoslav Royal Navy during the late 1920s. An enlarged version of a British design, they deployed their torpedoes by lining the boat up with the target, dropping them off the back of the boat and steering away. Both boats were captured by Italian forces during the Axis invasion in April 1941, and they were commissioned in the Italian Royal Navy. Their age and condition meant they were only used for patrolling and second-line duties. One sank in 1942 when its hull failed, and the second one became non-operational in September 1943, but escaped from the Germans after the Italian surrender that month and sailed to Allied-occupied southern Italy. It was broken up after the war.

  • Image licensing is appropriate (t · c) buidhe 00:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indy beetle[edit]

  • Despite one source suggesting she was restored to the Yugoslavs in 1945, it seems she was broken up by the Italians It seems according to who, and why does the that interpretation trump the alternative which says she was restored to Yugoslavia? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a bit confusing, Indy beetle. I've refactored. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but I still have questions. Does Brescia take the view that the ship was restored to Yugoslavia, or are they simply reporting that "one source" suggests that? Because if it is their own view I don't see why it would be a better or worse view than Freivogel's, in which case both hypotheses should be presented equally. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've not done enough to offer a fully valid support, but I can say no objections to promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

I was disappointed to see that these ships only served with two navies, which seems like a poor record for Royal Yugoslav Navy vessels - no wonder the article states that they were under-performers! I have the following comments:

  • Not sure about the 'but's in the second and third sentences of the lead, especially the third
Second sentence - I think the first "but" is justified by the difference from the CMBs, got rid of the second as it wasn't right. Third sentence - changed to "and". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giving and then using the names of the ships in the lead would make its second para much easier to follow - it's a bit heavy going.
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Sorry, I was a bit vague here. I really meant the second para of the lead. Tweaking 'the first boat' to 'the former X' or something might be the easiest way around the confusing naming issues. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha Nick-D. Done. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the cradles aft" - "in the aft cradles" perhaps?
Not sure, there were no other cradles, and "aft cradles" seems to infer other cradles existed? Have added "of the cockpit" though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "negative assessments of the boats during their sea trials" - can it be noted what these were? (a range of problems have been identified though)
I'd say the engine crew would have been the main source of complaints based on the sources, but they don't expand on the specifics. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MAS 1 D was lost on 19 April 1942 in heavy seas near the island of Mljet after the rivets in her hull plating failed due to engine vibrations, and she sprang a leak and sank quickly due to the lack of transverse bulkheads in her hull" - this is a bit over-complex. I'd suggest restructuring it as a couple of sentences. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've split it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Nick-D. See what you think of my changes? You can have a crack at your leisure now, CPA-5! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA[edit]

Will do this after Nick's comments are addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This surviving boat was broken up there after the war --> "The surviving boat was broken up there after the war"?
This has been fixed by other edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1926, the KM ordered two MTBs based on John I. Thornycroft & Company's existing class of 55 ft CMBs Is this an English unit? If so a conversation is needed.
What do you mean? CMB or ft?
  • I meant the ft part.
Right, but 55 ft is already converted above, ie "Large numbers of 17-metre-long (55 ft) Coastal Motor Boats (CMBs) had been produced..." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The boats were 18.3 metres (60 ft) Overlink here.
I've linked metres and feet earlier and abbr later. Does this work for you? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question here. If I'm not wrong shouldn't common units of measurement not be linked because everyone knows at least one of them per MOS:OVERLINK?
OK, removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • then pushed over the stern by a 3 m (9 ft 10 in) mechanical rod Compound adjective here.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and close defence purposes, one twin .303-inch (7.7 mm) Lewis machine gun --> "and close defence purposes, one twin 0.303-inch (7.7 mm) Lewis machine gun"?
Re-worded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • standing for Motosilurante (English: Torpedo Boat) in July 1942,[13][2] Re-order the refs here.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite one source suggesting she was restored to the Yugoslavs in 1945 Do we know what or from whom the source was?
This has now been fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe standardise the ISBNs?
That is actually against WP:ISBN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really that's something new to me.

Infobox

  • "Displacement: 15 tonnes (14.8 long tons) (standard)" Link "standard".
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Length: 18.3 metres (60 ft) (oa)" Unlink "metres".
It is the first mention in the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link shafts.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA-5! A couple of queries above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have replied to your comments. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, see what you think CPA-5. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good now. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I haven't done much A-class reviewing for awhile. Will take a look at this. Hog Farm Talk 00:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - prose is excellent, the article appears comprehensive, the image is appropriately licensed, and the sources all appear okay. I just have one question: is it really the best phrasing to say that the ship's crew sailed it when the vessel was incapable of sailing? Hog Farm Talk 04:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "sailing" is also used in the context of motor ships, see [1]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by AustralianRupert – Pass[edit]

G'day, PM, hope you are well. This is not a full review, I just had a look at sources based on the request posted on the main talk page. I have the following comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All citations appear to be consistently formatted, although for the Niehorster website, I'd suggest adding "work=World War II Armed Forces: Orders of Battle and Organizations".
I've actually dropped Niehorster, as I've used Freivogel for that citation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "London, England" -- is this necessary? I'd probably drop "England" here, but it isn't a major issue
I prefer to be consistent, as that seems to come up more than the comment that everyone knows where London is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spot checked citation 12 (as it was the only one I could access) and it appears to support what it is listed against, although the names and ranks are slightly different. (Both skippers are listed as Lts not Lt Cmdrs where the article implies the opposite, I think) and the source lists Brandislav Popovit instead of Branislav Popovic (this, of course could be an acceptable spelling variation but I don't know enough about the area to confirm myself). Can you please check these minor inconsistencies, or clarify them here?
I've used Freivogel in preference, and he is more specific and uses these spellings. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the ISBN for the Freivogel might need checking - when I looked on worldcat, it seemed to return an error: [2]
That is the ISBN in the front of the book. There may be some confusion caused by there being a Volume 2 in the offing and a separate ISBN for each volume and the whole two volume set? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • sources listed seem to be reliable based on author reputation or publishers; I was a little unsure about Freivogel who seems to be a medical doctor (?), but his work seems to have received positive reviews from reliable sources [3] and he seems quite prolific in the area, so is likely ok, IMO. I am not an expert in this field, though, and I am limited only to Google searches for reviews.
He's previously been published by reliable publishers on Yugoslav (and Austro-Hungarian) warships, including in the journal Warship International. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am off again to the badlands (where the internet is slow/often doesn't work) tomorrow so I may be slow to respond if you reply, sorry. Ping me, though, and I will try to come back as soon as I can. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day AustralianRupert, I'm good thanks mate. Stay safe wherever you are. I think I'm done here, see what you think of my responses/edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, PM, no worries, happy with your responses. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pendright[edit]

Back soon - Pendright (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Pendright, this one already has enough to pass, if you want to keep your powder dry for the FAC, that would be ok. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Thanks, will do! Pendright (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Uskok-class_torpedo_boat&oldid=1049118028"