Talk:Yugoslav destroyer Split
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Parsecboy in topic GA Review
 | Yugoslav destroyer Split 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: February 1, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yugoslav destroyer Split article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of this ship during construction or three-views diagram be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in Europe may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Title change
editThis article has been moved to include a disambiguation hull number. This move is unnecessary, as there is no other Yugoslav destroyer Split it can be confused with. R-11 also has no source in the article. It should be reverted to its original title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Yugoslav destroyer Split/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 13:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- One dup link
- Watch ENGVAR - I spy a "draught" in the infobox and a "harbour" in the body
- Check the rounding for displacement - 3,000 long tons (3,048 t) would be better.
- Since they were post-WNT ships, shouldn't LT still be the default for the La Fantasque class?
- The French generally still used metric tonnages unless forced to do otherwise like WNT business.
- The French wanted to be contrarian - who would've guessed?
- The French generally still used metric tonnages unless forced to do otherwise like WNT business.
- Some of this is unclear. What exactly is France's role in the building of the ship (apart from supplying radios)? If she's being built in Yugoslavia by Yarrow, why would the invasion of France have any relevance? And why would the French protest a British embargo?
- Fire-control systems and radios were French supplied.
- You might add a line clarifying that Germany and Italy invaded Yugoslavia on 6 April - the city being captured by the Italians comes out of the blue for people who aren't familiar with the war.
- it's referred to in the lede. Is that not enough?
- Link NATO. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: - I think this got lost in the shuffle. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Nah, just be being consumed by game playing. See if my changes suit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me, great work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)