Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/250t-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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

250t-class torpedo boat

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

250t-class torpedo boat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it passed GA in May 2015, and I believe it meets the Milhist A-Class criteria. The 250t-class consisted of 27 boats built prior to and during WWI. Many of them served past WWI, and some even saw active service in WWII and into the late 1950s. All constructive criticism will be gratefully received and acted upon. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment -- just as a placeholder, I reviewed/passed at GAN and will be happy to join in the review here but might wait until some of our experienced warship editors have had a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reckon there's been enough commentary now -- checked changes since I lasted copyedited and, apart from tweaking image positions, had no concerns, so happy to support here.
  • Also checked the newly added image so, coupled with the check I did during GAN, I think the image licensing is okay.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting: Let's start with minor issues:

  • "in 1913–16" should be "between 1913 and 1916.". The current version will not translate properly
    • Done.
  • I'd like to see some work on the last paragraph of the lede, I find it very confusing, although admittedly I can't point to a single specific reason. I don't find the descriptions in the WWII section to be confusing at all, so I think it's just the wording.
    • I've split the final para and made a minor change to the wording. Let me know whether it reads better now?
  • Why is the Background not part of the Description? Generally, shouldn't these be merged into a Development while the other sub-sections are part of Production?
    • I don't write a lot of ship articles, but I've never struck this query before. To me, it seems natural to have a Background section explaining the reason the class was created. It isn't strictly development, it is almost "Concept" in nature?
  • Am I correct in understanding that the boats only made an attack in a single instance in WWI? If so, I would recommend making the "but none were lost" in the lede more direct - ". Although widely used during the War, the boats only fired in anger on one occasion and suffered no losses."
    • Well, I don't think I can say that. Given their size, they may not have been mentioned if they participated in attacks alongside other vessels, and we are not to know if they fired on subs or floating mines etc. I omitted that 76 T fired on the Italian MAS boats as they withdrew after sinking the Szent István, and we don't know if 98 M fired during the attack on the airfield. Perhaps a statement like "Although widely used during the War, the class suffered no losses, and available sources indicate they were only involved in a few engagements." What do you think?
  • "She was re-armed with two 40 mm (1.6 in) guns" - I suspect this was the Bofors, and if so it's worth mentioning it here. The 20 mm mentioned just after this would likely be the Oerlikon, and again it would be nice to know for sure.
    • I'll re-check the source, but I'm not sure they specify the make of gun. I agree that it is highly likely they were Bofors and Oerlikon guns, but as you say, without a source it would be inappropriate to state it as a fact.

That's about it, it's easy to read, seems relatively complete and otherwise good to go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maury. Will get onto those points in the next day or so. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have had a crack at your points, @Maury Markowitz: let me know what you think, especially regarding the "losses/shots fired" bit? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above has been addressed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • No DABs, external links OK.
  • In the interest of simplicity, I'd take out all the different group info and consolidate them as a range. The data will still be available in the main body, but it's a bit much for the infobox.
    • Done, I left the endurance ones in due to the big difference in the M-class.
  • There are a fairly large number of photos available in Commons, although their licensing need work. Several should probably be added to show the ships after WW1.
    • Do you mean the Romanian ones? Or did you find others outside the relevant categories?
      • I just added another one of the first T class, although it's a close up and may be of some interest. Ideally you'd have at least one WWI, one interwar, and one WW2/postwar photo to cover all the bases. You might want to check with Nikkimaria, but many of the pictures on Commons should be covered by the Anonymous-EU and PD-1996 tags, IMO, and thus useable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Romanian WWII ones don't look to me to be PD. I have added one of 80 T with battle damage.
  • Link Yarrow boiler in the infobox and move it to the missing |Ship power= parameter along with the horsepower rating.
    • Done, but I was looking at HMS Hood and saw that the ship power field just listed the HP, but propulsion had the shafts and boilers? Which doesn't make sense to me, as propulsion consists of the turbines driving the shafts, doesn't it? Is there any firm rule? The template notes aren't exactly comprehensive.
  • The conversion for 450 mm actually is 17.7 inches, so watch for rounding errors.
    • added sigfig=3 to conversions.
  • You need to explain what 250t means.
  • I'd suggest taking the conversion for fuel capacity to one decimal point past the whole number lest you get criticized for bothering to do the conversion when it's the same.
    • added sigfig=3 to conversions.
  • Down to Service history, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You can find some additional details on the ship's armament in Friedman's Naval Weapons of World War I - details for the gun mounted on the boats are on the bottom right corner of page 294, and for the torpedoes on page 351.
  • Is it worth mentioning Sparviero? I don't know that it's a particularly relevant detail.
    • Removed.
  • There's a link for the Cattaro Mutiny
    • Linked.
  • I'd cut the redundant links in the post-war transfers tables
    • Done. Weird that Template:Navy doesn't accept |links=no
  • I assume the citations in the table headers cover the notes on the specific fates for wrecked boats?
    • Yep. Do you think it needs to be in each note to be clearer?
  • The lead says the Greek boats were sunk by German aircraft, but the body says Italian Ju-87s sank the first one, and the rest of the attackers are unidentified.
    • I've specified Axis in the lead, and noted that Greger says Proussa was sunk by Germans, rather than Italians. Greger says the rest were sunk by German aircraft.
  • Only four of the original twenty-seven... - "original" here implies that more boats were built later
    • Removed.
  • I might rearrange the para about the wartime fates about the Yugoslav boats - I get that you're doing it in order, but it makes more sense to me to talk about T1 and T7 at the same time, since they were both seized and transferred to the NDH - it seems confusing to jump back and forth between boats that were captured by the Germans, transferred back to the Yugoslav government in exile, etc.
    • I have a feeling that it would be just as convoluted the other way, as it would be jumping between the next changes and repeating some info (ie gun changes). I have broken up the para though.
  • She continued in Yugoslav service...taken out of service - "service" twice in one sentence is a bit repetitive
    • Removed.
  • The next sentence about T5 reads oddly to me too - maybe break it up to avoid the awkward clauses?
    • Me too, done.
  • The lead says the last Romanian boat survived until 1958, but the body makes no mention of this.
    • Yep, a case of conflicting sources and a typo, I've gone with the Romanian-specific source and contrasted the other source in a note.

Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nice work. I only a couple of minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • is there a place of publication that could be added for the works by Bell, Hathaway, Monakov & Rohwer, Smillie, and Sondhaus;
    • there is some inconsistency in the presentation of state locations, e.g. "Annapolis, Maryland" v "Annapolis, MD" etc.
    • some of your Notes end in full stops, and some don't;
    • "En route to the Black Sea after handover" and "En route from the Adriatic to Portugal after handover" -- is it possible here to provide slightly more detail here about what caused the loss?
    • in regards to the Niehorster web pages, I suggest adding "|work=World War II Armed Forces: Orders of Battle and Organizations" to the cite web templates. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • "At the time of the Axis Balkan Campaign of April 1941, T1 and T3 were assigned..." these were Yugoslavian Navy ships and a reader that was following the text closely should realise this; however, a casual reader that went straight to this section might not. Perhaps make it move clear with something like: "At the time of the Axis Balkan Campaign of April 1941, the Yugoslavian T1 and T3 were assigned..." or some other similar construction (suggestion only).
    • Otherwise I read through this and couldn't see any issues (I fixed what I presumed was a typo here [1], pls revert if I got this wrong). Anotherclown (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2015 (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/250t-class_torpedo_boat&oldid=674351960"