Talk:NMS Regina Maria

NMS Regina Maria has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 21, 2018. (Reviewed version).

A fact from NMS Regina Maria appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 December 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Soviet Union seized the Romanian destroyer Regina Maria and commissioned it into their navy despite Romania having switched sides to join the Allies?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NMS Regina Maria.

Wikipedia

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / Balkan / European / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:NMS Regina Maria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: L293D (talk · contribs) 22:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Very nice article - will be doing this in the next couple days. This review will be very similar to the one at Talk:NMS Regele Ferdinand/GA1, but this is not a copy and paste of it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Lead edit

Add a couple sentences about the laying down, launching, and commissioning after opening sentence.

Background and design edit

Add {{Main Article}} or {{See also}} to Regele Ferdinand-class destroyer
and the fire-control system was from Germany - remove "was".
The Regele Ferdinand-class ships had an overall length of 101.9 metres (334 ft 4 in), had a beam of 9.6 metres - remove second had.
and a mean draught of - what does "mean" do here?
Merge sentence 2 and 3 in second para.
Link 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41 at the end of 4th para.

Construction and Career edit

named for Queen Marie of Romania - after would do better
laid down by Pattison[7] in 1927 at their Naples, Italy, shipyard. - reword, reads confusingly.
The ship was assigned to the Destroyer Squadron - was there only one destroyer squadron in Romania?
Link Constanța.
Link Crimean Offensive somewhere - that's what the boat did for most of its war service.
The phrase "the Romanians" comes up in two consecutive sentences in para 2 - change one to "Romanian Navy" or something similar.
when she was discarded - to my knowledge, discarded is not a nautical term. Stricken might do better.
- All done. See if my changes work for you. And thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

GA Progress edit

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )

3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.

Add topic