Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yugoslav monitor Vardar

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) 08:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav monitor Vardar edit

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

Featured article candidates/Yugoslav monitor Vardar/archive1

This river monitor saw action in WWI as an Austro-Hungarian vessel, along the Danube from Belgrade all the way into the Black Sea. After the war she was transferred to the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia). She saw action in the invasion of that country by the Axis in April 1941 but was scuttled less than a week after the invasion commenced. The article has recently passed GA and has been further improved since then. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dan. Appreciate the c/e. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - not much to nitpick here.

Was she actually renamed "Temes (II)" and not just "Temes"? Authors commonly add stuff like (II) to differentiate between ships with the same name that were in service around the same time, but the ships didn't actually have the disambiguator painted on the hull. I've seen this a number of times on German warships from the period (see for instance here).

Good point. Fixed.

Watch Engvar - I see "program" and "armour"

Completely acceptable in Aust English.

I'd provide a translation for German terms like "Flottenabteilung".

Done.

Any clue as to what the vessel was doing between 1920 and 1941? Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No clue so far. The Yugoslavs didn't do much between the wars, and didn't have much money to do it with. Thanks for the review!

Support Comments: I made a couple of minor tweaks and have a couple of minor suggestions, otherwise looks fine to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in the References section, slight inconsistency: "London, England" v. "London"

I've removed the links from locs unless possibly ambiguous.

also in the References section, London is probably overlinked

see above.

the links to Niehorster's website do not appear to be working for me. Can you please check that the url is correct? Cheers.

Done. He's changed his web address. That is a pain in the arse. Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support
- Minor prose nitpick here: "The Yugoslav monitor Vardar was a Sava-class river monitor built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy as SMS Bosna, but she was renamed SMS Temes before she went into service." The sentence works but I think it could probably be tightened, consider perhaps: "The Yugoslav monitor Vardar was a Sava-class river monitor built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy as SMS Bosna, but was renamed SMS Temes before she went into service." (suggestion only)
- Normally I believe we consider sections mostly independent / stand alone, so this sentence probably needs to be clarified: "The ship was a Sava-class river monitor built...". I'd suggest something like "...The Vardar was a Sava-class river monitor built..."
- "...and seven machine guns..." Do we know what calibre? If so this should also be specified in the infobox. If its not available in the sources that's fine of course.
- Not sure about this: "During this task, she was drawing fire away from the battle-damaged monitor Enns when she received a direct hit in the crew quarters aft, and had to move out of range." (I'm no grammar expert by do we call this passive voice? and is that bad? Sorry I'm on drugs after stomach and spine surgery so I could be writing anything right now...) At any rate I think perhaps you might consider rewording it, consider perhaps: "During this task she attempted to draw fire away from the battle-damaged monitor Enns, but after receiving a direct hit in the crew quarters aft she had to move out of range. She was then run ashore to put out fires and stop leaks, before being towed out of the battle area by an armed steamer, and taken to Budapest for repairs." (suggestion only - what you had was / is workable in my opinion)
- "This was followed by forays of the monitors..." perhaps → "This was followed by forays by the monitors..."
- "On 9 May 1917, she was renamed SMS Bosna as the original SMS Temes was returning to service after a complete rebuild..." → "...On 9 May 1917, she was renamed SMS Bosna as the original SMS Temes was due to return to service after a complete rebuild..."
- "... which meant insufficient clearance for the monitors to navigate freely...." perhaps → "... which meant there was insufficient clearance for the monitors to navigate freely."
- "...charges on the bridge exploded and the bridge fell onto the tugboat..." Is there any more information on this. I'm assuming it was enemy action, or was it an accident?
- This is a fairly long sentence: "After the scuttling of the monitors, around 450 officers and men from the Vardar and various other riverine vessels gathered at Obrenovac, and armed only with personal weapons and some machine guns stripped from the scuttled vessels, started towards the Bay of Kotor in the southern Adriatic in two groups." Suggest breaking it up and rewording, consider something like: "After scuttling the monitors, around 450 officers and men from the Vardar and various other riverine vessels gathered at Obrenovac. Armed only with personal weapons and some machine guns stripped from the scuttled vessels they started towards the Bay of Kotor in the southern Adriatic in two groups."
- "...but the larger group only made it as far as Sarajevo on 14 April..." perhaps → "...but the larger group only made it as far as Sarajevo by 14 April..."
- I'm struggling with the last few sentences to be honest as it seems a little repetitive. You mention that their objective was the Bay of Kotor, say the first group made it but the second didn't, then say the remainder made it to the Bay of Kotor (which you kind of already said) but were captured. Perhaps consider rewording somehow (sorry no suggestions come off the top of my head).
- No chance of an image of the ship I suppose? If not its not a warstopper.
- Overall the article looks fine in my opinion and ticks the boxes, just some minor prose changes to consider. Anotherclown (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the review, Ac. Have implemented pretty much all your suggestions, and have tweaked the last couple of sentences to eliminate the repetition. Here are my edits. We don't have a source for the calibre of the MGs. Almost certainly 7.9mm, but nothing to confirm it. Pics are a problem due to licensing issues, I'm cleaning up a line drawing as a substitute, but it could be a while. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those changes look good to me, adding my support now. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 15 March 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.