Talk:Armed Boats Squadron Dubrovnik

A couple of suggestions

Hello, as per the request at WP:MHA, I have assessed this article as C class. Good work. I have the following suggestions for further improvement:

• the Libertas convoy is mentioned in passing in the Postwar decorations and heritage section, but the reader is not really provided enough informaiton on what this was, or what the squadron's role in it was. It seems significant, though, so I would suggest adding a paragraph to the Wartime history section;
• date format inconsistency. For instance, compare "26 January 2013" with "May 22, 2006";
• English variation inconsistency: sometimes US English (e.g. "defense") is used, but there are also elements of British English (e.g. "kilometres"). Either is fine, but consistency is best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Armed Boats Squadron Dubrovnik/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll do this one. Will get started shortly. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	OK
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	OK
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	OK
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	OK
	2c. it contains no original research.	OK
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	OK
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	OK
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	OK
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	OK
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	OK
	7. Overall assessment.	Promoted.

Comments

• It is pretty unlikely that the Sveti Vlaho was the "first naval vessel to fly the Croatian flag in combat" given there were NDH vessels flying what could only be described as the "Croatian flag" in the Black Sea in WWII, see Croatian Naval Legion. Perhaps the most appropriate appellation would be "first naval vessel to fly the flag of the Republic of Croatia in combat". I don't think the current sentence is sustainable.

• Indeed, fixed per suggestion.

• "confiscated by the authorities". What authorities are we talking about? Croatian I assume. Pls add.

• Added.

• The Libertas convoy is clearly worthy of an article, I have redlinked it.

• True. I'll see what additional information might be available on organizing and progress of the convoy (and Slavija's return trip evacuating 2,000 refugees) and start the article - hopefully some time soon.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• The last para of the lead (and the last section) should be in chronological order.

• Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• no dablinks, images should have alt text, reflinks all OK, no redirect issues. No action required on these (although I suggest you add alt text to all images, I understand it is not required at GA).

• Will do, but I'm quite tied up until wednesday morning, so the alt-text will most likely wait till then (a day and a half or so).

• checklinks shows [1] as dead. Needs addressing, I've regressed the 2b tick due to the dead link/verifiability.

• The article seems to have vanished, so I replaced it with a similar one, reflecting its contents in the prose there.

• prose needed some work. These are my edits [2] and [3]. I'll have a last look through after the remaining points are addressed, but it's pretty much there.

• I took a look at those and found absolutely no problems with your edits.

• on hold for the last couple of points to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking time to review and contribute to improvement of the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• A pleasure to review, a very interesting and unconventional naval unit. I look forward to reviewing more of your work. Final set of prose edits here [4], hope they are all ok. Article promoted, well done. Suggestions for improvements to bring it up to MILHIST A class:

• alt text for all images (not critical but worth doing for all articles GA and above in my view)
• a diagram of the general area of Dubrovnik and the harbour showing the approach route used and enemy naval picket lines and land positions, and even the location at which Sveti Vlaho sank. I have to say, the Sagger operator who hit her must have been very skilful, especially if she was underway at the time...
• a little more information about the siege to provide a bit more context. Was there starvation, epidemics etc? In brief, what was the nature of the fighting associated with the siege? What weapons were used to engage the squadron boats?
• more information about the types of boats used, such as some makes and models, different types of armament, where were they fitted with the armour and weapons? In Dubrovnik or elsewhere?
• how did the combat fatalities occur and on what boat (if known)?
• did the Yugoslav Navy use sea mines or other static countermeasures, and what ships did they use in the blockade and where were they based?
• convert it to short citations and create a Bibliography section/subsection.

Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armed Boats Squadron Dubrovnik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/26/world/2-yugoslav-states-vote-independence-to-press-demands.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090923040416/http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/1991_10_53_1265.html to http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/1991_10_53_1265.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)