Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Osvetnik-class submarine

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.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Osvetnik-class submarine edit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

Osvetnik-class submarine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Osvetnik-class was a class of two French-designed submarines built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy between the wars. Both boats were captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion, and after modernisation, they were utilised as training and experimentation boats. They were both scuttled in September 1943. I have nominated both submarine articles along with this class article to capture all the suggested improvements in one hit. If you review this article, please take a look at the two individual submarine articles to see if your feedback applies there too? Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm... these articles are about 2/3rds cut and paste and perhaps two paragraphs of unique material. I have to ask, is there enough unique material for three A-class articles here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Class articles generally are, Maury. The last class article I submitted (on the other WWII class of Yugoslav submarines) was cut-down considerably during the review process. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here is not the class article, but the articles on the two ships themselves, which have little unique material. They consist largely of the class article text, unchanged from what I can see, with a different lede and a little expansion at the bottom. Based on this bar, I could write a multi-page article on every Mosquito ever built, and I don't think that's appropriate. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • inconsistent: "Osvetnik (Nemesis) and Smeli (Daring)..." v. "names of Osvetnik and Smeli translate as "Avenger" and "Daring" respectively..."
    • the translation is a bit fraught, but I've gone for consistency.
  • " a surfaced draught of 3.8 m": is "surfaced" needed here (I'm strictly a landlubber but is there such a thing as a submerged draught?)
    • Indeed.
  • "submarine" is probably overlinked in the infobox
    • I don't think so, I think they are templates.
  • "Adriactic Sea" is ovelinked
    • Fixed.
  • the preceding and succeeding classes are mentioned in the infobox but not in the body;
    • I didn't think that was necessary, maybe Parsecboy can help?
  • "She was captured then scuttled by the Germans in September 1943..." probably best to mention the Italian surrender here (on first mention of their "re-capture" in the body)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - some minor points:
    • Tool checks all ok - i.e. no dabs, external links check out, no duplicate links, no issues with reference consolidation, image has alt text, Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase [1] (not action req'd);
    • Minor inconsistency with both "French Circé-class" (in lead) and "French Circé class" (body) used in the article;
    • Otherwise I could see any issues. Anotherclown (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Well constructed article. Here are my observations:

  • In the first sentence of the lead, there's a comma(,) missing after "France".
  • Lead; It is good that the meanings Osvetnik and Smeli are mentioned in brackets. Consider specifying the language too.
Image licensed and all good. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. All done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.