Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

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

Toolbox

Ljubljana was a bit of a bad-luck ship. Commissioned after WWII had begun, she came a cropper soon after, running aground. She was still under repair when the Italians captured her as part of the Axis invasion of her homeland in April 1941. Repairs were completed and she was refitted, and she then mainly worked the North Africa convoys under the Italian flag for six months before running aground again off Tunisia in heavy seas in April 1943. That was the end of her. She is part of a Good Topic on the ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy that I am slowly moving towards Featured. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Again with the refbegin and end tags?
  • Suggest author links for Michael J. Whitley, H. T. Lenton and David K. Brown
  • There is a later edition of Rohwer, although I don't think that you have access to it?
  • Ampersand for Rohwer & Hummelchen
  • Footnotes consistently formatted
  • References are RS and consistently formatted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to the newer edition of Rohwer unfortunately. The rest are fixed. You wouldn't have a source for the speed that goes with the range would you, Sturm? Lenton and Whitley don't provide it, just the range (from Lenton). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. I even checked Vego's article, but nothing. Article is good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "and declared a total constructive loss." I am not sure what the word "constructive" adds.
    Good point, deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the fact that three large destroyers were not going to be built, the idea that Dubrovnik might operate with a number of smaller destroyers persisted." I am struggling a little with this. Why should the cancellation of two (not "three", as the current wording might be read) large destroyers have any effect on whether the one which was built would operate with smaller destroyers?
  • "acquire three such destroyers" As both "large destroyers" and "smaller destroyers" are mentioned in the previous sentence, it is not completely clear what "such" refers to.
  • Rereading the first paragraph of the main article, I may have got my assumptions above wrong. Regardless, feel that you have may have boiled the information there down a little. Could you unpack it slightly?
    Tried to make it clearer that the flotilla leader concept had two possible permutations, and they ended up going for the second one. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if I was being picky there. (It is always difficult when you already understand the point being explained, to decide if it is clear enough explication for a reader who doesn't.) But I am now reassured that I wasn't. Much clearer IMO. Thanks.
  • "had a range of 1,000 nautical miles" Usually a range is only meaningful if the speed assumed is also given.
    Sadly, none of my sources have this information. I asked Sturm and he doesn't have a source for it either. My last hope is that Parsecboy might have one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If we don't have it, we don't have it. Not an issue at GAN I suppose.
I had a look and couldn't find a speed for the range figure either, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking, Nate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1942–1943" The MoS suggests '1942–43'.
    • Not exactly. MOS:NUMRANGE says to use the full date unless constrained by space (table, etc.) or by citation format.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very tactful Sturm: "Not exactly" as in 'not at all'? Well, I think that you are both wrong and right. I was remembering MOS:DATERANGE, but misremembering that when it says "Two-digit ending years (1881–82...) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years ... " there is a "may", so as you were and apologies. (MOS:NUMRANGE is only referring to non-date ranges, but very confusingly uses "pp. 1902–1911" as an example. Is one allowed to simply change that?)

Good stuff. Just the trivia above for me to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! See what you think of my changes to the Background section. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on IMO. Supporting, but can I leave you with the suggestion that you link "bore" in the footnote to Gauge (firearms). Gog the Mild (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • she ran aground on a reef off the Yugoslav port of Šibenik Link Yugoslav and unlink Yugoslavia in the next sentence.
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link WWI.
    Not done due to sea of blue and commonality of the term. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Beograd class was developed from a French design "were" instead of "was"?
  • Link full load.
    These done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • was provided by the Dutch firm of Hazemayer No link for Hazemayer?
    Linked to Siemens & Halske, of which it was apparently a subsidiary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • requirement reflected Yugoslav plans to deploy Link Yugoslav here.
  • it sank close to shore, and some of the crew You mean "she"?
    These done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one of the crew died, and the captain was arrested Who's the captain?
    Not in the source, and not likely to be notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • captured by the Royal Italian Navy (Italian: Regia Marina) on 17 April Unlink Italian due common term.
  • Her original 40 mm (1.6 in) guns were removed Remove "1.6 in" here because the former section already mentioned the "40 mm (1.6 in) guns".
  • Pipe German to Nazi Germany.
    These done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • escorting another series of convoys to Tunisia commencing Pipe Tunisia to French Tunisia.
    Already linked above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look, CPA-5! See if my edits suffice. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good to go to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias[edit]

  • "..by the Dutch firm of Hazemayer." No need for "of".
  • "Only one of the crew died, and the captain was arrested pending an investigation." I'm not keen on the use of "only" here; maybe rephrase as "One crewmember died, and the captain.."
  • Do we know what the result of the investigation was?
    Not that I can find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead mentions "..between Italy and the Aegean and North Africa." The Aegean is not mention in the body though.
  • "Freivogel, Zvonimir (2014)" is out of order in the references, and could do with an ISSN. I can't access the PDF, is it English language?
It opens for me. It is in English, Freivogel is/was a professor at the Coburg University of Applied Sciences in Germany, but Voennyi Sbornik is published in Russia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The ISSN is 2409-1707, if you would prefer that to the OCLC. Harrias talk 09:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a very good article with little for me to complain about, nice work. Harrias talk 11:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Harrias. I reckon I've addressed your comments. Here are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, happy to support. Harrias talk 09:33, 13 November 2019 (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_Ljubljana&oldid=926050709"