Talk:MTB 345

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Nordic / World War II B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Nordic military history task force
	World War II task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Shipwrecks

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

Norway

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from MTB 345 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 November 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Norwegian-British crew of MTB 345 were tortured and executed as a result of Adolf Hitler's Commando Order?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MTB 345.

Wikipedia

Review comments

G'day. I have a few comments regarding my initial assessment of this article as Start class. I assessed it against the C Class criteria:

B1 - sort of, but I have a question about the suitability of the references, almost all of which are in Norwegian, including all of the ones about the murder of the crew by the Germans.
B2 - appears to meet this criteria.
B3 - no, the lead section does not meet WP:LEAD in that is does not summarise all of the article's most important aspects.
B4 - yes, but has several less major grammatical errors.
B5 - yes, it has an infobox, but no other supporting materials.

So, B2, B4 and B5, = Start Class. No doubt I should have noted this in the B Class criteria in the banner, and my apologies for that (my bad). However, moving on, I have some suggestions to quickly get it up to minimum C Class:

B3 - The lead section needs to be a better summary of the article's most important aspects. In my view it leaves out large parts at present. Improving the lead in this way would make this article C Class immediately, and I would be happy to discuss and re-assess on that basis.

If you wanted to get it to B Class:

B1 - The lack of English sources for significant matters covered by the article (the fate of the crew) is an issue. The Falkenhorst trial was conducted in Germany and the transcript is available in English as it was a joint trial with the Norwegians [1]. The trial transcript would be a good source in English for the execution of the "Commando Order" aspects.

The B4 issues are pretty minor, and the B5 is ok with the infobox. I've updated the B Class checklist to match the above. If you think I'm being too harsh, feel free to take it to WP:MHAR for a second opinion. They are the gurus and I won't be offended. Slaynt vie! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, they do help guide me in improving the article.

B1 - last time I checked the use of non-English sources was still okay, although I do realize that that question is brought back up with some regularity. Also, the Norwegian-language sources I've used are considered highly reliable. Still, thanks for the tip with regards to an English source.
B3 - will have a look asap.
B4 - I guess I'll call in a native English speaker.
B5 - yes, it does have an infobox, which is the minimum requirement. I couldn't find any free photos (the Imperial War Museum one is only free for non-commercial use) and I'm not really much of a map guy. Manxruler (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Progress:

B1 Done
B3 Done - please tell me if the lead is still insufficient
B4 - last on the list, will go seek out a native speaker now.
B5 Done doesn't need remedying Manxruler (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B4 is ok, the grammar issues are minor and shouldn't be an obstacle. I'll have a look myself shortly. The lead does the job now. B Class. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the re-review. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've also tweaked some spelling, grammar, wikilinks, abbreviations, translated some ranks etc. Feel free to revert anything you're not comfortable with. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard references for hyperlinking?

May I implement hyperlinked references with the Sfn and Citation templates? Lgfcd (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to? Anything wrong with the way it is? I find those kinds of things not too useful, and a pain when adding more refs. Manxruler (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong, just a bit more useful when the citations hyperlink to the bibliography entries Lgfcd (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And parenthetical referencing? Please don't do that. Manxruler (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of the sort. Indeed the Sfn template uses no parenthesis. Lgfcd (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I misunderstood then. Looking at it, what exactly is hyperlinked about it? Manxruler (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When using the Template:Sfn to point to Template:Citations, one gets for free a hyperlink to the bibliography entry. Lgfcd (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like the way it is now. Manxruler (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not change substantially, it is only an improvement. No information removal. Lgfcd (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I feel that it will complicate things. Not for the reader, but for the editor(s) who continues the development of the article (i.e. me, for the most part). Having looked at Template:Sfn, I'll pass on this one. This template isn't required (looking at a bunch of the FAs lately, they don't use it either), so it just one more complication. No thanks.Manxruler (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]