Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav monitor Drava/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2016 [1].

Yugoslav monitor Drava

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC) and 23 editor[reply]

This article is about a heavily armoured river monitor that saw extensive service with the Austro-Hungarian Danube Flotilla during World War I and then briefly saw action with the Yugoslav Danube Flotilla during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in World War II. It is the last of four articles about Yugoslav river monitors to come to FAC. During the invasion she was persistently attacked by Stuka divebombers who scored several ineffective hits on her until one bomb went down her funnel into her engine room, killing most of her crew and sinking her. It successfully underwent Milhist A-Class review in August last year, and since then has been expanded and improved with a German language source. While we believe it meets the FA criteria, we are keen to get constructive suggestions about possible improvements. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:River_monitor_Inn.png: the given US tag requires that the work "was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice" - was that the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, I've tweaked the description to reflect the full story. Have I covered off on it now? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coments

Perhaps a link to the "assault on Belgrade" in which she participated.
The SMS Szamos that is mentioned doesn't have an article.
30th Infantry Division Osiječka also doesn't have an article.
It is well written, and understandable While it shows much promise I believe it should not receive FA status until the above listed issues are dealt with. Iazyges (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've added a couple of see also links to the WWI section to address your first point. A few redlinks are fine in a FA, I've had plenty of articles pass FA with redlinks, it is part of a developing encyclopedia. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

I'll review this as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first sentence in the article body is a bit hard to understand. "The name ship of the Enns-class river monitors was built". Perhaps make it clearer by saying "SMS Enns was constructed as the name ship of the Enns-class river monitors" or some such. Perhaps move the name ship fact down to "Despite the requirement that Enns and SMS Inn be constructed as sister ships" and add "with SMS Enns as the name ship".
Any source for footnote b?
I assume the sister ship is shown in the infobox because none could be found for the actual ship? Seems a bit strange that another ship would be shown there, however much alike. It would be like showing the brother of an actor because no pictures of the subject could be found...
"Namesake: Enns River" Why is this significant info not mentioned in the article body?
"The month after Enns was commissioned into the Danube Flotilla" Is that October 1914?
There is some double linking.
"Enns continued in action against Serbia and her allies at Belgrade until late December, when her base was withdrawn to Petrovaradin for the winter." What does the last "her" refer to here? A bit hard when you refer to both the ship and the country as "her" in the same sentence.
Important terms like "Ottomans" and "Central Powers" are not linked.
"With the dissolution of Austria-Hungary" Add date for context?
"but two of the successful anti-aircraft gunners were among the survivors" Perhaps name them, if possible?
"During the occupation of Yugoslavia." When and by who? Link?
- Thanks for the review, FunkMonk. I have addressed your comments, here are my edits, which I believe cover all your points except the issue of a citation for Note b. I believe that this isn't likely to be challenged, as it is the international standard for measuring the length of the barrel of a gun. The sister ship is in the infobox because I have been unable to find a free photograph of Enns. It is fairly common to do this with essentially identical ships, which is the case with this one, despite the fact they were made at different shipyards. I've had FAs promoted with a similar arrangement before. See Yugoslav submarine Nebojša for an example. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all my concerns have been nicely addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

All cites are to reliable sources and all are formatted properly. I could find no statement without a citation that needed one. All appears to be in order. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"endangering the monitor's anchorage, with only Enns having the range to match the French guns". I am not clear what "only" means here, presumably that there other monitors present which did not have the range, but I think you need to clarify.
"newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (KSCS, later the Kingdom of Yugoslavia)" You have mentioned the new kingdom in the previous sentence. I suggest moving "(KSCS, later the Kingdom of Yugoslavia)" above and just using the initials here.
Looks fine. Just a couple of quibbles. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look Dudley. Done. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this one seems to be ready. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments

I won't hold up promotion but a couple of things you might look at, PM:

You use "thirteen" in the lead but "13" in the last para -- there may be other inconsistencies in rendering numbers I didn't notice.
I think "dive bomber" (as in the WP article name) is more common than "divebomber" -- if all your sources happen to use the last rendering then I guess fair enough but certainly if there's a mix I think the former would be preferable... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian, both fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.