Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Albona-class minelayer

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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Albona-class minelayer[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Albona-class minelayer/archive1

These dinky little mine warfare vessels were originally started for the Austro-Hungarian Navy during WWI, but construction stopped at the end of the war. The Italians had three finished in 1920, and another five were completed a decade later for the Yugoslavs. The remaining six were never completed. Those that had been commissioned all saw service in WWII, in Italian, Yugoslav, German and even Croatian hands. Three survived the war to join the Yugoslav Navy, and one was still in service in 1978. The article went through GAN in 2017, and I've only made a few minor improvements since then. This forms part of a Good Topic I'm slowly moving towards Featured. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Both images are appropriately licensed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Do this one this evening CET. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see.

class for the Austro-Hungarian Navy (German: Kaiserliche und königliche Kriegsmarine; k.u.k. Kriegsmarine) Unlink German 'cause of common term.
and a draught of 1.40 m (4 ft 7 in) as a minesweeper and 1.70 m Both "1.40 m" and 1.70 m are too specific.
were rated at 280 indicated horsepower (210 kW) Link kW.
In Italian service, the Albona-class Link Italian with Kingdom of Italy's article.
were armed with a single 76 mm (3.0 in) L/40 gun Like above 3.0 in is too specific.
apparatus to assist in the defence of Venice Unlink Venice 'cause of common term..

Infobox

"31.10 m (102.0 ft) (oa)" both metre and foot are too specific and the metre shouldn't be linked.
"6.70 m (22.0 ft)" Same as above.
"1.40–1.70 m (4 ft 7 in–5 ft 7 in)" Metres are too specific.
"1 × 76 mm (3.0 in) L/40 gun" inch is too specific.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day CPA-5, all done. Here are my edits. Thanks for taking a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle[edit]

The first three ships of the class, MT.130–132, were completed for the Regia Marina I presume this means they were allotted as war prizes to the Italians, but this is not clear. Was the contract bought out by the Regia Marina?

I hadn't thought about them being war prizes before, and the sources don't say. I assumed the shipyard had unfulfilled contracts and the Italians then paid for them to be completed. Same with the Yugoslavs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 1941, Laurana was fitted with smoke apparatus to assist in the defence of Venice. This implies that there was some sort of battle for Venice (of which I've never heard) or a serious belief by the Italians that the city was at risk of being attacked. I presume Laurana was simply posted to the city and then was given the smoke apparatus later as it was thought to be a good idea in the event the city was attacked. Some clarification would be helpful. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Turin was bombed on 11 June 1940, there was Operation Bowler in 1945, and I'm sure there were other air attacks on Venice harbour by the Allies before that. Having ships capable of laying a smokescreen would have been sensible I would have thought. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the service history is divided thematically and not chronologically, subject headings to this effect would be useful.

Good idea, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laurana was sunk at Trieste by aircraft bombs on 20 February 1945. Allied aircraft? -Indy beetle (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pasman was also captured by the Germans, who handed it over to the Navy of the Independent State of Croatia. This ship was stranded on the Island of Ist Is it known if it was accidentally beached or abandoned in good condition by its retreating crew?

I suspect it was an accidental grounding, but the source doesn't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"KJRM-in-exile" could be linked to Yugoslav government-in-exile.

Good idea, done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon I might have addressed your points, Indy beetle? Thanks for taking a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

Most sources are produced by naval historians and published by reputable presses. The exception is Niehorster, which is self-published, but he is a trusted academic with expertise regarding Yugoslavia and WWII.
I'm not seeing the information that is cited to Niehorster being supported by the source. Perhaps it should be this link?

Fixed, thanks. Not sure what happened there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This 1969 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships says that the Pasman and Ugliano were scrapped in 1967. Any knowledge on why Conway's would say something different? If one is not of greater authority than the other, then perhaps the discrepancy should be explained in a footnote.

In general, Conway's is a preferable source for this era, and it is also more recent. I tend to use Jane's only for minor detail not provided in better quality sources, or to corroborate another source where there is a discrepancy, such as here where different speeds are provided for the two sub-classes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Indy beetle! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing checks out, and my comments have been addressed. Offering my support for promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support by Zawed[edit]

Having taken a look at this article, I consider it is in good shape. My only comment is in relation to the shipyard. The text initially says the vessels were built at Ganz & Danubius shipyard but the infobox and ships table says Jadranska Brodogradilišta, which links to Kraljevica Shipyard. Presumably this change is as a result of a takeover due to the dissolution of Austria-Hungary. Maybe add a clarification note? Zawed (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Zawed thanks for picking this up. I have now clarified that Ganz & Danubius at Porto Re became Jadranska Brodogradilišta (which means Adriatic Shipyard) at Kraljevica. Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me, adding my support now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2019 (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.