Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav monitor Vardar/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2015.

Yugoslav monitor Vardar

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Yugoslav monitor Vardar was an Austro-Hungarian river monitor that served under two names in the Danube Flotilla during World War I, during which she fought the the Serbian Army, the Romanian Navy and Army, and the French Army. After the war she was transferred to the the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia), and renamed. During the German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, she laid mines in the Danube near the Romanian border, and fought off several attacks by the Luftwaffe, but was forced to withdraw to Belgrade. Due to high river levels and low bridges, her navigation was difficult, and she was scuttled by her crew on 11 April. Passed Milhist A-Class review in March this year, and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Yugoslav_monitor_Vardar.jpg: when/where was this first published? If the given source was the first then the tags would be incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Nikki, I completely forgot to add that JFSOWW2 is a reprint of the 1946/47 Jane's. The pic was in the original, have added that detail to the image description. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but this still presents an issue with regards to licensing - the current tagging requires that the image be first published in Yugoslavia, but Jane's is British. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, bit slow on the uptake today. Of course, I'll have another look. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is your reading of this that it won't be PD-UK until 2017? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming that was indeed the first publication, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I reckon it was in an earlier edition of Jane's too. I'll check at the library. I'll ping you when I have checked. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I found it in the 1942 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships, p. 516. Will tweak licence. Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 06:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * is it your view that this can only be on WP (due to no valid US-PD licence, not on Commons? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily...if the 1942 Jane's was the first publication, this would be PD in the UK and fine for Commons. However, if this was published at any point before that outside of the UK, we'd need to re-evaluate and might only be able to host locally. Either way you'll need to include a licensing tag to indicate why it's free in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've found it as early as 1933, but it still doesn't seem to have been published in the US, and I can't see any applicable PD-US tag. It seems to me that I'll need to re-upload it on WP with the UK-unknown tag and a NFR. Does the fact that it appears to have been an official Yugoslav photo help in any way, ? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Yugoslavia had any provision to make government works PD automatically, so not unless it was published there. UK first publication would have UK law apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe that the law on succession issues means that official governmental works (such as official photographs of naval vessels) are PD, and that a and  will cover it. Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry this has dragged on so much,, but I think I have adequately covered the licensing of this image now using the Yugoslav laws of succession and PD-SerbiaGov. Could you have another look? Thanks. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll need a US PD tag of some sort as well. With that this could work, although I'm not entirely sure "1933 Photo Official" is enough to determine that SerbiaGov applies...Chris, care to weigh in? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Short of evidence otherwise, it strikes me as a reasonable assumption, as a Navy photograph would still be created by the government. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, then SerbiaGov + a US tag should be good. Nikkimaria (talk)
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: Overall, this looks quite polished. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "support of the resulting bridgehead, Temes provided close support" (seems a bit repetitious). Perhaps substitute the first instance of "support"
 * in the interwar period, there appears to be a gap of about 21 years in terms of coverage. While I understand that the sources probably don't go into too much detail about this, is it possible to include maybe even just a short sentence about what the ship did over this period?
 * "larger group only made it as far as Sarajevo by 14 April when they were obliged to surrender..." (is it possible to say why? I assume it was because of encirclement by German and or Italian troops, or something similar). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day . Thanks for the review! First and third points addressed. Re: second point, there is a general observation by the British naval attache in 1932 about lack of training and exercises due to budgetary constraints (which I've added), but there is nothing else I have been able to find, even in Yugoslav sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, no worries. Your changes look good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ceradon

 * I'll jot some notes below. Hope to support. --cera don  01:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the only quibble I have. Happy to support promotion. Thank you, --cera don  04:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * World War I
 * "The position of Romania was uncertain" -- could you clarify what position you mean. When I saw that, I immediately thought that you were referring to the geographical position of Romania, which I don't think makes any sense. Thus, judging by the rest of the sentence, I suppose you mean "geopolitical situation"?
 * yep, geopolitical. I've specified that. Thanks for looking it over! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. --cera don  07:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This looks ready,. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Good writing style, readable and yet concise in nature. Most educational and a nice example of encyclopedic content. Thanks for improving this article and making it available at such high quality for our readers. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cirt! can I have dispensation to nominate a new FAC please? Thanks, Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 08:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "the monitors' navigation was difficult, and she was scuttled by her crew on 11 April": suggest "Vardar was scuttled", since the last reference to Vardar, rather than the pair of monitors, is a couple of sentences earlier.
 * Great pick-up. Fixed.
 * You have "Bosna/Temes/Bosna" in the name field in the infobox; any reason not to include "Varda"? Similarly you give details of the renaming from Temes to Bosna in the notes, but not of the renaming to Varda.
 * Yes, she was never called Vardar in A-H service.
 * "In November 1915, the other monitors were assembled at Rustschuk, Bulgaria": meaning that Bosna was not there? In which case where was it?  You don't mention any movement of Bosna to join the other monitors in the next couple of sentences, but it appears that Bosna was at Rustschuk during the later engagement.
 * At that time, she was called Temes and was being repaired at Budapest. She wasn't renamed Bosna until 9 May 1917. It is confusing, as the name was used for two different vessels.
 * OK; yes, it's confusing! I think the issue for me is you don't really make it clear when she re-enters the narrative.  Is she still being repaired during the action of 27 August 1916?  If so, I think the five sentences leading that paragraph could be compressed a little, as Temes was not involved in any of that action. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, she was back in service at that point, I have added a bit to clarify. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Flottenabteilung Wulff" is treated as singular ("was sent" and "it spent") and then plural ("they returned"). In British English I think this would be singular; I assume this is in Australian English?
 * No, my mistake, should be a formation and treated as singular. Fixed.
 * "On 16 October, she": suggest making this "On 16 October, Bosna" since the last specific mention is some time earlier.
 * It now says what you're suggesting.
 * In the lead it's not apparent that some of the men were killed in the accidental explosion. If the source doesn't make it specific enough to be sure that men from Vardar in particular were killed, I think some phrasing such as you use in the body of the article would work.
 * I think I've clarified this?
 * The lead says the men were captured by the Italians, but in the body it says they were captured by German troops.
 * Actually there were two teams from the combined group, some captured by the Germans at Sarajevo, the smaller one by the Italians at Kotor. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know if I've misunderstood your comments? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  16:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.