Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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 MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik edit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Dubrovnik was the only destroyer leader built for the Kingdom of Yugoslavia between the wars. She was captured by the Italians during the 1941 April War, and as Premuda was the most effective Italian war prize of WWII, being involved in convoy escort and troop transport to Africa. She was later captured by the Germans provided naval gunfire support, and conducted mining operations as TA32. Her last fight was the Battle of the Ligurian Sea. She was scuttled by the Germans in April 1945 as they withdrew from Genoa. She just passed GA (after previously failing GA and having a lot of work put into her), and I believe she now meets the A-Class criteria. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looking at the careers of these ships you're bringing to A-class makes my head hurt. I hope that you're quietly fixing up articles on deadly boring topics like Royal New Zealand Navy ships to stay sane! I have the following comments:

  • There's a bit of repetition of new country/new nation in the first para of the "Development" section
  • Do we know why Škoda guns were specified? (presumably for commonality with other weapons used by the country)
  • My assumption is that it was because Yugoslavia had close relations with Czechoslovakia in the 20's or because Skoda guns were commmonly used in the Austro-Hungarian fleet (familiarity), but there isn't anything I can find that explicitly says either of those reasons. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the ship try to escape the Italian invasion, or see any combat?
  • No, nearly all the Yugoslav ships stayed in port throughout, and were captured in situ by the Italians. There was a bit of minelaying and some planned operations against the Italian enclave at Zara by torpedo boats and minelayers, but Dubrovnik and her smaller destroyer companions pretty much stayed put. With the exception of one destroyer blown up by her officers, and a couple of torpedo boats and one sub that escaped, that was it. The navy rank-and-file and many officers were mainly Croats, and many of them had no stomach for fighting for the Serb-dominated regime. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you say why the Italians pressed this ship into service (to make good losses, make use of a high quality ship, etc).
  • Nothing specific, the Italians pretty much pressed the whole Yugoslav fleet into service, undoubtedly because they needed the ships, but I haven't seen a source that states that was the reason. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Support My comments are now addressed - nice work Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • The damage was to her rudder, I wouldn't call that severe, she still made it home. Thanks, ed17! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • One of the images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it for consistency (not an ACR req, suggestion only).
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
    • "When she was captured by the Germans, Premuda's new guns had not been completed." This seems to be a little repetitive as the point is already made in the last paragraph of the previous section. Perhaps consider if its necessary to include here again. Alternatively you might delete "...and the new guns had not been installed..." from the previous section if you feel the second instance is req'd (the paragraph does seem to rely on this information in my opinion) (suggestion only).
    • Otherwise fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the review, Ac. I've adopted the alternative approach. I agree the para relies on that info. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:35, 1 July 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Yugoslav_destroyer_Dubrovnik&oldid=669612457"