Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2021 [1].

Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Peacemaker67 (talk)

Zmaj (Dragon) was built as a seaplane tender, but was barely used in that role, being converted to a minelayer before WWII. Captured during the invasion of Yugoslavia, the Germans put her to use as Drache (also Dragon) and then Schiff 50, mainly as a troop transport, escort and minelayer. Interestingly, she was use for shipborne trials of helicopters in 1942–1943. One of the minefields she laid in the Aegean accounted for one Allied submarine and two destroyers, with another severely damaged, all in a matter of a week or so. She was sunk by British aircraft in late 1944. Sturm brought her up to GA ten years ago, and has worked on her sporadically since, we've recently added quite a bit from a couple of new books, and she passed Milhist ACR last month. We reckon she's now ready for FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
  • "the Yugoslavs may have chosen a German shipbuilder because the Germans may have subsidised part of the cost". Do we need "may" twice?
No, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link abaft.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 23 September, Schiff 50 was attacked by four British Royal Air Force Bristol Beaufighters off the island of Syros in the Cyclades on 26 September". Perhaps decide on one of the dates?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that you usually place a comma after "However".
Deleted it instead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider cropping in on the Fl 282 image.
I'll see what Sturm thinks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that is all I can find. What a splendid article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ship%2BPhoto%2BZMAJ.jpg needs a much stronger FUR, and is any more source information available? Also, the "unique historic images" tag is typically applied when the image itself is significant, rather than what is pictured - suggest swapping with another tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? I thought that only applied when it was a historic image from a press agency? I'll beef up the FUR though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the source of this image is now not available at that link or any archived one, I've swapped it out with a different one from Navypedia under an expanded FUR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nikkimaria, can you have a look at this one for me please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest switching to the generic {{non-free fair use}} tag. Any idea who Wolfgang Stöhr from the Navypedia credit is? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done Nikkimaria. I'm not reading that as a photo credit, it is a generic message crediting Stöhr (whoever he is) for "additional information" used on many Navypedia pages, some of which don't have images. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine then. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In-text attributed in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not in sources, but probably not, as the Italian Navy gave the Yugoslav coast a wide berth during the invasion. Do you think that needs to be added to the body? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
Yes, I normally do this, but Sturm doesn't, so I am deferring to his preference. The guideline actually says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.", so it isn't compulsory. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a bit abrupt etc, fixed I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In-text attributed now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Lee, thanks for taking a look, I think I've addressed all your points, but there are a couple of queries above. See what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

edit

Greetings gentlemen - I have the following comments. Pendright (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • While in their service she was renamed Drache, had her anti-aircraft (AA) armament improved, and was used as a seaplane tender and later as a troop transport.
Suggest replacing "she" with " the ship" & dropping the first "and"
Did the first thing, but the "and" introduces a final clause about the purposes for which the ship was used, and I think it should stay. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soon after being re-commissioned in August, she was renamed Schiff 50, and was used to evaluate the shipboard use of helicopters for anti-submarine warfare and mine reconnaissance.
  • re-commissioned -> Macquarie Dictionary spells it as one word?
Yes, style guides here vary a bit on hyphenation, but Sturm is from the US, and the article should be written in AmEng in deference to Sturm's earlier work on it, so I've changed it per Merriam-Webster. I will go through and check for any other AustEng that has crept in (I found a centre rather than center). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop the comma after 50
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • They decided on the smallest possible ship that could carry supplies and spare parts for ten seaplanes,[1] and placed the order with a German shipyard.
  • that "would" carry?
Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the comma after seaplanes?
It is convenient for the close footnoting, and I don't think it is too grammatically wrong. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the naval historian Zvonimir Freivogel, the Yugoslavs chose a German shipbuilder because the Germans may have subsidised part of the cost, and due to differences of opinion between Yugoslav naval aviators and their French and British counterparts regarding the size and role of the new ship.[2]
"and due to" -> "which was due to the"
No, the second is not consequential to the first. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General characteristics:

  • Zmaj's layout was typical for a ship of her type, with her bridge positioned in the centre of her raised forecastle, and her aft deck built low and wide to facilitate aircraft handling.[3]
The word "her" is used four times in this sentence?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her two propellers were powered by a pair of eight-cylinder, four-stroke MAN Diesel engines that had a maximum output of 3,260 shaft horsepower (2,430 kW).
Think about replacing the "Her" with The ship's?
Used Zmaj's. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was a poor seakeeping ship due to a combination of her high silhouette and shallow draft, which made her very susceptible to cross winds, and made steering difficult.
Crosswind is one word - per Macquarie?
Fixed, per M-W as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A single de Havilland DH.60 Moth floatplane was stored in the aircraft hold between the forward superstructure and the mainmast.
"disassembled" defined is "to take apart" - per Macquarie?
Went with dismantled. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav:

  • Shortly before the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia on 6 April 1941 Zmaj,[7] under the command of Captain Leo Zaccaria,[10] laid defensive minefields along the Dalmatian coast and off the main ports.
"off the main ports" -> off main ports
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German:

  • It is likely that ammunition for her original 83.5 mm guns was scarce, and that the re-armament was intended to make ammunition resupply easier.[13]
rearmament is one word - Per Macquarie
And M-W. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parthian's torpedoes missed, but in the surface fight that followed, Schiff 50 was damaged by Parthian's deck gun, and several crew were killed or wounded.
  • Drop the comma after followed
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and several crew -> and several of the crew
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the surrender of Italy in September 1943, she was used to carry troops to capture the Greek island of Kos from a combined British and Italian force on 2–3 October in Operation Eisbär, and then complete another minelaying mission in the Aegean.
  • Complete -> completed?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last clause is punctuated as an independent clause, without a subject?
Ah yes. Fixed I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 12 and 22 December 1943, Schiff 50 participated in two convoys [that ferried] ferrying German troops from Piraeus to the Greek island of Samos , and return[ed]ing with Italian prisoners-of-war.
  • Since particpted is past tense, thought the others should be too
  • prisoners-of-war -> Macquarie does not hyphenate the term
Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon I've addressed your points Pendright, see what you think? Thanks for taking a look, some good suggestions there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for your prompt and genial responses. But there is one that I'd like to quibble about further - For convenience, I'm postng it here:

  • They decided on the smallest possible ship that could carry supplies and spare parts for ten seaplanes,[1] and placed the order with a German shipyard.

that "would" carry? Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Why the comma after seaplanes? It is convenient for the close footnoting, and I don't think it is too grammatically wrong. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

My point is that the phrase is punctuated as an independent clause but who or what is the subject - who placed the order?
In any event, the nomination has my support, Regards! Pendright (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pendright, to the last point I have added "the navy". I have boldly bolded your support for the aid of the coords. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

edit
  • All footnotes and references are formatted consistently in a manner that adheres to the MOS.
  • All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources, although I can't verify the ISBN for "Freivogel, Zvonimir (2020). Warships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy 1918–1945".
It's copied from the hard-copy book. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searches don't reveal any glaring omissions, this article appears to accurately cover the source material.
  • The nominator is an experienced and trusted editor, so spotchecks are not needed.

No action needed, very tidily done. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators

edit

G'day @FAC coordinators: , this one is getting close to being open for a month, looks GTG now, three supports including Lee's mainly prose and MOS review (non-Milhist), and image and source review passes. I know I still have a co-nom up (Uroš Drenović), but wondered if could I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720

edit

In an effort to clear the FA backlog, I am reviewing this as a non-expert prose review. I also checked that the info in the lede and the infobox were present (and cited) in the article body.

  • "She was scrapped in place" What does it mean to be scrapped in place? Please clarify in the lede or add a wikilink.
Basically it means cut up and sold for scrap. Ship breaking (which is the formal term) is already linked in the lead and body? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (designated Torpedoboot Ausland (foreign torpedo boat), and renamed TA 14 and TA15 respectively." The first bracket needs a closing bracket.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was scrapped in place after the end of the war." In place will also need to be wikilinked here. I am guessing that it means it is scrapped at the location that it is currently in, but this is just a guess.
This is a pretty standard term, and ship breaking is linked. Does it really need further explanation? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't think I was clear enough with this. I was confused about what "in place" meant (not what scrapping means). So I knew the boat was taken apart, but not what in place referred to. If no one else has a problem with it then I won't let this stop my support. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes the ISBNs in the References use the 10-digit, and sometimes the 12-digit. These should be consistent.
Actually they are either 10 or 13-digit. They are not required to be consistent, and there are good reasons for using both. WP:ISBN says "ISBNs come in two styles, containing 10 digits or 13 digits, and are known as "ISBN-10" and "ISBN-13" numbers. Please use the ISBN-13 if both are provided by the original work. The ISBN-13 is often found near the barcode and will start with either 978- or 979-. However, if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it. This is because ISBNs are often used as search strings and checksum differences between the two forms make it difficult to find items listed only under the other type." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I trust that the ISBN-13 code was checked for and not present in the book, as WP:ISBN says (in bold) that ISBN-13 is preferred. If you discover that the longer ISBN is used, please switch out the numbers. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox says that she was built from 1928-1930. The body says that she was launched 22 June 1929, had an engine room fire in September, and was brought back to Hamburg for repairs. Should the infobox instead say that it was built between 1928-1929, or can a ship be launched while still being built?
Oh yes, most ships are not complete when launched, and may still have superstructure, guns etc to be added. The completed date is when the building was finished. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox says she has a complement of 145. Using ctr+F, I could not find this information in the article body. Is it present there?
Well spotted. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says, "but was captured at Split by the Italians on 17 April and handed over to the Germans soon after." The infobox says her fate was that she was captured by the Germans. Please clarify in the article.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when ready for a second look. Z1720 (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done I reckon, Z1720. See what you think! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this FAC. I did add some comments above, which won't interfere with my support, but I hope they will still be read and considered. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Yugoslav_minelayer_Zmaj/archive1&oldid=1045034207"