Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uskok-class torpedo boat/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 14 December 2021 [1].

Uskok-class torpedo boat

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Uskok or Četnik class of motor torpedo boats built for the Yugoslav Royal Navy during the late 1920s. An enlarged version of a British design, they deployed their torpedoes by lining the boat up with the target, dropping them off the back of the boat and steering away. Both boats were captured by Italian forces during the Axis invasion in April 1941, and they were commissioned in the Italian Royal Navy. Their age and condition meant they were only used for patrolling and second-line duties. One sank in 1942 when its hull failed, and the second one became non-operational in September 1943, but escaped from the Germans after the Italian surrender that month and sailed to Allied-occupied southern Italy. It was broken up after the war. This article forms part of the featured topic Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy that I am slowly moving towards 100% featured. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]


Support by Pendright

[edit]

Greetings @Peacemaker67: I have a few minor commemts! Pendright (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Lead:

  • They were equipped with two British-designed 456-millimetre (18 in) torpedoes as their main armament, and were also fitted with hydrophones and could carry depth charges instead of torpedoes if being used in an anti-submarine role.
  • They were equipped with "cradles" that carried two British-designed torpedoes?
  • Drop the comma after armament or add a subject to the last clause?
  • Is the word "being" neccessary, since the word "if" usually means "on condition that"?
Have rearranged the sentence and implemented the rest. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Pendright (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The boats were lightly-built using mahogany, powered by two petrol engines, and lacked transverse bulkheads within the hull to mitigate leaks.
Consider replacing and with "but
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were commissioned in the Italian Royal Navy and operated with a squadron out of the Dalmatian port of Šibenik, where they had been based pre-war.
They -> "The ships" would drop one they?
Sure, used "boats" though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • Large numbers of 17-metre-long (55 ft) Coastal Motor Boats (CMBs) had been produced in the UK between 1917 and 1922 for the British Royal Navy, and they were also sold to overseas customers in the interwar period.[1]
This seems to be the first use of "UK"?
MOS:1STOCC refers to common abbreviations not needing to be expanded on first use, and I think UK is one of those, along with US. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This created very uncomfortable conditions for the engine room crew due to [the] lack of space and the loud engine noise.
Consider this change?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An open cockpit for steering was located amidships, immediately fore and aft of which were columns on which twin machine guns could be mounted.
Might consider replacing one which?
Done. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Pendright (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The boats of the class had two Thornycroft V12 petrol engines installed, the forward one driving the starboard propeller shaft and the aft engine driving the port shaft, with the rudders placed immediately aft of the propellers.
Should port and starboard be linked?
Sure, they are combined, but I think it'll work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To conduct a torpedo attack, the [a] boat would be aligned with the [a] target, [then] the torpedo engines would be started and [a torpedo would] they were then [be] pushed over the stern by a 3-metre-long (9 ft 10 in) mechanical rod, after which [a] the boat would immediately turn to the side and [its] the torpedo would proceed towards [a] the target.
See what you think?
Not sure about that. This is being used as an example, so the definite article seems appropriate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A specific boat is not mentioned, thus the comment - either way is fine. Pendright (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only four torpedoes were delivered with the boats, which were to be used for both training – with an inert warhead – and in combat with a live warhead.[6]
  • See if you can live with this version: Only four torpedoes – with inert warheads – were delivered with the boats, which were to be used for both training and combat with live warheads.[6]
I think that changes the meaning. The torpedoes were delivered with both inert and live warheads. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no proboem! Pendright (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The torpedoes had two speed and range settings. At 35 kn (65 km/h; 40 mph) it had a range of 2,300 m (2,500 yd), but a range of 3,650 m (3,990 yd) at 29 kn (54 km/h; 33 mph). It had a warhead that consisted of 145 kilograms (320 lb) of TNT.[7]
The subject of the first sentence is pural, but the sentence that follows refers bcck to the first and it's singular?
Fixed, I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were also some concerns that the Mediterranean sun would warp their hulls, and precautions were put in place to cope with this should it occur.[11]
Change would to could
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that after the two boats were commissioned, plans to order more were shelved due to a combination of: negative assessments of the boats during their sea trials and [the] training of crew members[,] ; and the advent of the Great Depression in 1929, which meant funds [would probably] were not [be] available in subsequent years for further acquisitions.[6]
See if you can live with some of these changes?
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 1941, the maximum speed that could be achieved by boats of the class was 30–32 kn (56–59 km/h; 35–37 mph), and in Italian service the auxiliary engine could only achieve 4.5 kn (8.3 km/h; 5.2 mph).[1]
"while" in Italian service?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depth charges
How were thsee put into the water?
Not in sources, presumably the same way as the torpedoes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sevice history:

  • one such training exercise a torpedo was lost from Četnik, and until 1941 she only carried one torpedo.
Any details about the loss of the torpedo?
Not in sources, presumably it sank. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Četnik was sailed to Divulje near Split by Popović's second-in-command, Porucnik Fregate (Lieutenant) Velimir Škorpik, ostensibly in order to join the nascent Navy of the Independent State of Croatia (Croatian: Mornarica Nezavisne Države Hrvatske, RMNDH).
  • "was" and "in order" could be dropped?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think about bracketing "near Split"
Used snd instead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the boats was sent to Piraeus in Greece for a short time, but the wear and tear of the long voyage weakened her hull.[14]
Can you tell readers which one?
Actually yes, the clear implication in the source is that it was MAS 1D. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • She sprang a leak and sank quickly due to the lack of transverse bulkheads in her hull.[5][13]
Any survivors?
Not mentioned in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the evening of 11 September, her crew escaped and sailed ME47 to Taranto in Allied-occupied southern Italy.
Suggest replacing "and sailed" with "by sailing"
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finishd - Pendright (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, Pendright! All done, see what you think of my responses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - I did leave some repsonses to yours. Regards! Pendright (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Coastal Motor Boats". Why the upper case initials.
That was their proper name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and were also". Maybe a little redundant? ("and" and "also".) Also a bit of a long sentence.
trimmed and restructured. See what you think of my changes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the boats were also equipped with two hydrophones". "two hydrophones" each?
yes, tweaked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In place of the torpedoes, up to four depth charges could be carried for anti-submarine warfare". Any details known about these? Size, weight, amount of explosive, whatever?
no, it isn't even clear where these were sourced from. Presumably the Brits, but nothing in sources specifically for this class. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the surrender." This comes a bit from nowhere. Surrender? Of whom to who and when?
added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Četnik sailed to Divulje – Split – by Popović's second-in-command". "by" makes this non-grammatical.
good grief, yes... Fixed I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done I think, Gog. See what you think of my responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]
  • Is there a reason that you have "Yugoslav Royal Navy" linking just "Royal Navy" which is then piped to Royal Yugoslav Navy?
Over time, I have formed the view that the proper English translation of Kraljevska mornarica (and therefore the article title) is actually "Royal Navy", not "Royal Yugoslav Navy", so therefore the order "Yugoslav Royal Navy" is more accurate than the latter. I have yet to move the Royal Yugoslav Navy article to Royal Navy (Yugoslavia) and make many consequent changes to articles, but will when I get a chance. But in comparison, when the British Royal Navy is linked, only Royal Navy is usually linked, and this should IMHO be the same. I'm open to alternatives though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The naming convention for "other" royal navies by modern historians is to add the nationality to their name in English, even if it's not formally part of the name in their native language. Thus Royal Norwegian/Swedish/Dutch Navy, etc. This has been formally codified by NATO and makes the recent effort to refer to the British Royal Navy, etc., look very odd to my eyes. In my own writings I extend this pattern to navies for countries which once had a monarchy like Italy, Greece, etc., if I don't refer to them by their name in their native language like Regia Marina with a parenthetical translation as Royal X Navy. We're inconsistent about article titles for navies with French Navy instead of Marine Nationale, but also with Regia Marina.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've gone back to the Royal Yugoslav Navy formulation. It clearly is causing confusion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uskok class or Četnik class was a class" forgive my ignorance, it seems like you're saying two classes were a single class? You then go on to say "Named Uskok and Četnik..." so is it really the case that it was just two boats in one class? It's very confusing to a non-expert.
It is a single class of two boats, but some sources call it the Uskok class whilst others call it the Četnik class. This is possibly due to ethnic bias, Uskoks were Croatian irregulars and Četniks were Serb ones. Any suggestions how I might clarify? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the article is called Uskok-class, why could you just lead with that and add a footnote to say that it is also referred to as Cetnik? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day The Rambling Man, done. I think that is your last outstanding comment? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Italian forces" is there a link?
It isn't clear from the sources whether the navy or army captured them. The Italian Armed Forces page is actually about the whole shebang from the beginning of Italy, and isn't the best, but it'll have to do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Italian Royal Navy" similar comment to the first one, why wouldn't Italian be in the pipe in this case?
Same response as above, it was the Regia Marina, and although that article should possibly be at Royal Navy (Italy) per WP:USEENGLISH, there is possibly an argument that Regia Marina is actually the common name in English. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could create plausible redirects at MAS 1 D and ME 47 to here.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British Royal Navy" similar comment, you've got "Royal Navy" as a link to several different targets.
I've fixed the above, but in one case it is the Royal Navy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which isn't easily combined in the way Sturm suggests above, like Royal Yugoslav Navy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "class of 55 ft CMBs" you previously had metric first, which I have say I found odd (especially with the 456 mm (18 in)!), but here you use Imperial only, so I would consider the idea of using the contemporaneous units. "pair of .303-inch (7.7 mm) " is another example...
Well, it certainly is a dog's breakfast with various measurements leading. Perhaps the discussion in the first para should lead with imperial because that was the measurement of the original UK boats, but the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Yugoslavia used metric, so I should probably use that thereafter even where the item was UK-made (ie the torpedoes and machine gun). Does that seem ok? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems ok. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the Uskok class" firstly, Uskok is easter egg link, and secondly "class" was used prior to this so should be linked there.
Well spotted, fixed in both cases, hopefully it is better now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to mitigate leaks" is mentioned in the lead but doesn't appear to have made it into the main body when describing the ship design.
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the engine room crew due " how many crew for the engine room?
Not in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "open cockpit for ... the cockpit " repetitive.
Opted for "it". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two torpedoes were carried..." the lead said that depth charges could be carried, so shouldn't this say "Two torpedoes could be carried..."?
Yes, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be the geek in me but "1.15–1.3 m " I would give ranges to the same number of decimal places.
Sure, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The boats of the class" what does "of the class" bring here?
Not much, deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same comment on d.p. for "1.15–1.6 tonnes".
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The main armament for the boats was two British-made forward-facing 456 mm (18 in) torpedoes in the cradles aft. ..." you already said most of this above, "Two torpedoes were carried in open cradles aft of the cockpit".
deleted all after "torpedoes". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to pipelink TNT, that's its common name.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mount were carried, which could be mounted" mount mounted reptitive.
varied wording. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "precautions were put in place " such as?
Jarman doesn't say, perhaps staining or varnishing? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a torpedo was ... one torpedo" torpedo torpedo.
deleted second torpedo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on 17 April. " I would add the year for complete non-ambiguity.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Italian Regia Marina (Royal Navy)" earlier you had Italian Royal Navy and link Regia Marina. I would be consistent.
I think I got these. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ME47 was based" is it this or ME 47?
  • "sailing ME47 to" similar.
These both fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have in a brief read. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely spotted, both fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Rambling Man, a couple of queries above when you get a chance. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - of course, no obligation either way, but do you feel that you are in a position to either support/oppose? Hog Farm Talk 19:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, happy to support now my concerns have been addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:06, 14 December 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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Uskok-class_torpedo_boat/archive1&oldid=1060349941"