Talk:Action of 1 November 1944/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 11:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments
I'll post a review of this article over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a great article on an interesting engagement - great work. I have the following comments:
 * "a British Royal Navy destroyer flotilla sortied to intercept a Kriegsmarine force of two corvettes and a destroyer sent to escort a German convoy" - this seems a bit overly complex. I'd suggest tweaking it to something like "a British Royal Navy destroyer flotilla and a Kriegsmarine force of two corvettes and a destroyer which were escorting a German convoy"
 * You're right, that's better, except the German flotilla was sent from Rijeka/Fiume to link up with a convoy sailing towards it from Šibenik. The battle took place before the link-up. - I copyedited this a bit. Could you have another look at this?
 * That change looks good. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "newly formed German marine units" - shouldn't these be referred to as "naval units"? 'Marine' is normally applied to ground troops in this kind of context.
 * Amended as suggested.
 * "The coastal shipping became increasingly significant for the German forces deployed in the Independent State of Croatia, and especially Dalmatia—as road and rail routes became increasingly" - watch for duplication of 'increasingly'
 * Removed one of those as redundant. The roads were deemed unsafe for use.
 * It might be worth providing context for why the Germans were withdrawing forces from Dalmatia
 * Added a sentence to provide context and a bit in the aftermath to provided info when the cities the pullout originated from were captured by Yugoslav Partisans.
 * Why were all the German commanders involved in this disaster awarded such a prestigious medal?
 * Considering they inflicted zero damage to the RN force, I have no idea. The sources simply say they received the medals, but I could not find a single sentence on reasoning behind that.
 * Fair enough. The article on the recipients of this medal in 1944 and 1945 created by MisterBee showed that there was a large jump in the number being handed out in the last months of the war, and he hadn't seen a reference explaining why either. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Hunt-class destroyers never engaged large Kriegsmarine vessels in the Adriatic after November 1944." - this seems overly precise: did other types of destroyers engage large German warships?
 * Right. Freivogel p.67 specifies composition of the RN flotilla in the adriatic and all destroyers there were Hunt-class ones. I assume it is safe to replace "Hunt-class" with "Royal Navy" in that sentence, or simply drop that entirely from the text. There were French destroyers Terrible and Malin involved in the Adriatic Campaign, but only up to mid-1944 (per O'Hara p.173-175). I provisionally changed that to "Allied destroyers..." I'm not bent on either of those solutions. Which course of action would you recommend?
 * That change looks good. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * File:HMS_Avon_Vale.jpg's source link doesn't work - there should be a direct link for this on the IWM's database Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to fix this, so I swapped the image for HMS Wheatland which contains the IWM sourcing info that works.

Thank you very much for taking time to review this article. I think I have now addressed the above issues (although I need some feedback on a couple of those), and I'll address any further concerns right away.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. As I think that Retrolord's comments have now been addressed, I'll pass this review. Thanks also for your comments Retrolord. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments by Retrolord
Shouldn't measurement units be consistent?

"their four-inch (100 mm) guns" " 37-millimetre (1.5 in)"
 * I think all measurements are now metric.

Citations after quotes?

""northern" and the "southern"" ""Ghost Fleet of Pag"" And shouldnt that be THE ghost fleet of pag?
 * Added "the". I'm sorry I don't understand the "citations after quotes" question. Could you please clarify?

Please address these points, thanks  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  01:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contributing comments to the review and improving the article. I believe I have addressed a couple of issues, but I still need your feedback on one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding citations after quotes, It was my understanding of the GA criteria and the MOS that quotes required citations directly after them. I may be wrong though but thats how I have always done my reviews. Let me know what you think  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  09:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The two are directly supported by cites 14 and 20 (i.e. the first ones following specific quotes). Now that I'm looking at this again, perhaps northern/southern should not be in quotes since the original supposedly quoted from says sjeverna/južna - in Croatian?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that citations needed to be directly after any quotes. But i'll leave that to the primary reviewer, Nick-D to decide. And your translation of the source is fine with me.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  09:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cites repeated at required positions. Original text quoted provided through lang-hr template for the Ghost Fleet of Pag.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

One more thing for consistency, some of the flags in the infobox link and some of them don't. Shouldn't they all link?  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  09:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. That is because flag and flagicon templates work differently and there is not much I can change about that. I used the flagicon throughout now, so flags are consistent (I'm afraid one might see that as overlinking). Unfortunately there's no way to have all the flags without links.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all that :P  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  12:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)