Talk:Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 13:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Link beam, draught, and star shell please

   Does the article use BrEng or AmEng? I see "defense" but also "draught"

   I'd remove the conversions on repeated figures (for instance, the 40mm guns mentioned in the service history)

   Why is "Operation Harpoon" italicized?

   Both "she" and "it" are used to refer to the ship, one pronoun should be standardized.

   What kind of ship is USS Gleaves? Same for HMS Lookout and Meteor - it's best not to make readers go to another article to find out these sorts of details.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Were any of the guns actually mounted in turrets? Most destroyers of the period had shielded gun mounts rather than true turrets (see for instance this photo of a contemporary American destroyer). I'm sure the AA guns were in open mounts, at very least.

   The citations to O'Hara should not include the middle initial - the ref should be formatted as "|last=O'Hara|first=Vincent P."

   The citation for Conway's should have Chesneau as the editor, not the author, and should also include Robert Gardiner, who was the editorial director. If you want to add even more detail, you could add the chapter title and author (which would be "Eastern Europe" and Marek Twardowski, respectively).

   I'm guessing no info on where the torpedo tubes were located?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   What specific length is given? (waterline length, length overall, etc.)

   Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea has a few pages that mention the ship, particularly her Italian service (search under all of her names). I can check the pages that don't show up in Google Books tomorrow night.

   Please add a note like the one I have here to explain the L/67

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Destroyer at speed, Dubrovnik, 1 (Warships To-day, 1936).jpg - I think this needs to go (and probably, all of the Warships To-Day photos) - even if one assumes that the UK-anon template is correct, they were still under copyright in 1996, so their copyrights would have been extended by the URAA.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Failing the article as the nominator has not edited in a month and a half. No prejudice to re-nomination when they return. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I believe I answered all of your remarks, except one. That being information from the Chronology of the War at Sea. I personally don't have the book, in PDF or on paper, and Google books doesn't have the option of actually reading the book online.--Saxum (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for losing track of this - Rohwer's book is available in Google Books at the link I provided above. There are a couple of pages that aren't viewable so I can add any relevant info from them once you're done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Saxum: - are you around to have a look at the last remaining issue? I'd like to wrap this up soon if possible. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Parsecboy, Saxum last edited on Wikipedia on December 20. I'm not sure how much longer you want to wait here... BlueMoonset (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I was planning on adding the stuff from Rohwer this weekend myself, at which point I think the article will be good to go. And if I don't end up having the time to do it, I'll fail it then. Thanks for checking in. Parsecboy (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)