Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav monitor Sava/archive1


 * 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2016.

Yugoslav monitor Sava

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Another in my series of Austro-Hungarian/Yugoslav river monitors. As the Austro-Hungarian Temes-class monitor Bodrog, she fired the first shots of World War I. She then went on to serve in three more navies under the name Sava, being scuttled and raised twice. She still exists, although she has been reduced from her former glory and is now an ammunition barge! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dan! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * Map labels aren't very legible - suggest scaling up
 * File:Dunarea_romaneasca.png: what is the source of the data presented here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikki, I'll make inquiries. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears the creating editor (on Ro WP) hasn't edited since 2013. Does that mean I should ditch it, ? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can find sourcing that supports the data presented, that would also work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No issues with expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments
 * Lede is rather a bit too detailed, IMO and could stand to be more of a summary.
 * Add a link to the knots conversion template by adding "|lk=in" both in the infobox and the main body.
 * Her armour consisted of belt, bulkheads and gun turrets 40 mm (1.6 in) thick and deck armour 25 mm (0.98 in) thick, and her conning tower was 75 mm (3.0 in) thick. A few too many "and"s here.
 * Link mine, launched, lighter, tug, patrol boat, minelayer, division (naval).
 * Any information on her pre-WWI activities?
 * How's your German? Die österreichisch-ungarische Donauflotille im weltkriege, 1914-18; dem werke "Österreich-Ungarns seekrieg, 1914-18" by Olaf Richard Wulff; Hans Hugo Sokol; Gábor von Döbrentei ought to be useful.
 * Commencing on 30 October 1915, they escorted a series of munitions convoys down the Danube to Lom where they were transferred to the Bulgarian railway system for shipment to the Ottoman Empire. The antecedent for the second "they" is unclear as the monitors certainly weren't transferred to the RR system.
 * Under the terms of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Bodrog was transferred to the KSCS along with a range of other vessels, including three other river monitors,[18] but was officially handed over to the KSCS Navy and renamed Sava in 1920. Why a "but" here?
 * 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. Who started?
 * Sava was raised and repaired by the navy of the Axis puppet state the Independent State of Croatia, and served under that name alongside her fellow monitor Morava, which was raised, repaired and renamed Bosna. Missing a comma.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, . I have addressed all your comments (these are my edits), and trimmed the lead a bit. My German is basic (I lived there for two years twenty years ago...), and I have checked uni and other accessible libraries and none have a copy of Wulff et al, so I'm stuck with what I have in that respect. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am currently adding some details to the article from Pawlik, Christ and Winkler (thanks Sturm), will ping when I'm done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have completed expanding the article using the above reference, which has resulted in the addition of quite a bit of material to the WWI section in particular. These are my edits. I believe it is appropriate to ping all the reviewers (,, and ) to check that they are still happy with their support or review post-expansion. Thanks to everyone for their patience. Regards, Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 03:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necesssary ... if Sturm likes the changes, he'll support, and that support will cover prose as well. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a couple of tweaks, including one where I took out a conversion because you only need to convert a measurement on first use; see if they suit. I like how you were able to expand the WWI coverage, but I think that the lack of coverage of this ship's peacetime history need to remedied before it fulfills FAC's completeness criteria. I won't oppose it, because I think that it otherwise meets the criteria, but I think that you're hosed here for lack of available information to fill in the gaps.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Support I've been copy editing this article on and off for the last two years and feel that it meets the criteria by all means. These are my edits. 23 editor (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed the article at the ACR and my few concerns were addressed there (though I'm a little disappointed to see the map had to go). I don't see any issues with the material added since my review. Great work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Note -- source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * this looks like it is close to promotion. Would you mind doing a source review? No prob if you're too busy. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Some of the details in the infobox, such as namesake, are unsourced
 * Some of the other details in the infobox, such as displacement, don't match the article text
 * Should use colwidth rather than fixed number of columns in refbegin
 * Be consistent in whether you link publisher locations - New York is linked in Fitzsimmons but not Deak, etc. Also be consistent in whether you use "London, England" or just "London"
 * What type of source is International Naval Research Organization (1965)? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikki. The namesake thing is just WP:BLUE (all river monitors were named after the eponymous rivers, both under the Austro-Hungarians and Yugoslavs). I've fixed the conversions so that they match, fixed the cols and location links. The source was poorly presented, it is a journal called Warship International, and I've added the issn and improved the ref tag to match. All done I think. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

this has been a nominee for two and a half months and looks good to go. Could I have dispensation to nominate a fresh one while the wheels turn? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead PM. If Nikki is happy with the responses we'll close this shortly anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Only outstanding point is the last - if that's a journal, the title should be italicized rather than in quotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I was using the title field instead of the journal field... Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.