Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav torpedo boat T1/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) 04:26, 3 September 2016.

Yugoslav torpedo boat T1

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about an Austro-Hungarian 250t-class torpedo boat that saw service in both world wars and in five different navies between 1914 and 1959. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 18 July 2016 (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) 00:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Image review
 * What was the first known publication of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The only place I've seen it is on the website it was taken from. It is not in Greger (the most comprehensive reference on the k.u.k. Kriegsmarine), despite there being three photos of vessels of the class in that book (including one that is in Greger). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a problem. The URAA rule is usually only applied to works published before the date of restoration, per Non-U.S._copyrights; without any earlier publication, we can't confirm that. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * - but the Austrian licence says "Austrian works are currently in the public domain in the United States if their copyright had expired in Austria on the U.S. date of restoration (January 1, 1996)"; which it had. Is that bit wrong? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It will usually be right, but this case is an unusual one. My understanding is that under these circumstances it is wrong. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've substituted a British Govt photograph published in 1946/47. Does that work? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments
 * " Austro-Hungarian Navy (German: kaiserliche und königliche Kriegsmarine) base at Cattaro". Why does Cattaro link to the Bay of Kotor instead of the port of Kotor (which Cattaro redirects to? Below (post WWI) you say "based at the Bay of Kotor". Why the change in how the name is shown and should it not be in the bay if it was based at several ports in the bay?
 * The Bay of Kotor had quite a few naval installations in it, not all of which were at Kotor itself. Sources tend to play fast and loose with references to Cattaro/Bocche di Cattaro and Kotor/Bay of Kotor, and it changes over time. The Italian names are commonly used for WWI, the Serbo-Croat ones are generally used for the interwar period and WWII.


 * I cannot see where the boat was built. Have I missed this?
 * Trieste, it is in the Background section.


 * "this contributed to ongoing problems with the boats" and "Due to inadequate funding, 76 T and the rest of the 250t-class were essentially coastal vessels" What were the problems and how did the inadequate funding restrict the boats' operations?
 * The sources don't really expand on this. My assumption is that restricted budgets meant that the build was less than optimum for sea-going craft, but exactly how that played out in the construction isn't clear.


 * A first rate article. Just a few nit picks. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, . Do you think I need to add any more information or tweak anything? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you need to make clear that Cattaro is a bay and the same place as Kotor. Maybe change "at Cattaro" to "in the Bay of Cattaro" and below "in the Bay of Kotor (the Serbo-Croat name for Cattaro)". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, . I've provided both the Italian and Serbo-Croat at first mention, then used the Serbo-Croat later on. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments A really nice little article. I see no glaring issues, but have noted a few details.


 * Title: Is there a particular reason that this article is titled T1? I'm guessing that there are more references in publications to this ship as T1 rather than 76 T, or because it was T1 for the longest continuous period in its career? My only beef with it is that it’s not immediately clear which nation it is part of when its career is summarised in the opening paragraph, and that the main body has more information on her Austro Hungarian career than any other.
 * Mainly because she saw the majority of her service as T1, including WWII. Sources are fairly evenly divided. WP:SHIPNAME provides some guidance, but length of service under this name is probably the best bet in this case.


 * Lead: I think the first sentence is a little detail heavy. Given it's the very first line, I think there's a touch too much information. The name is an issue, as are the details of the class. Following on from the title issue, the opening sentence gives the appearance that “250t-class, T-group sea-going torpedo boat” is a Yugoslav class, when in fact it’s not. The inclusion of the original name and nation in the same sentence only serves to make it more complicated. I’d suggest something more like “The Yugoslav torpedo boat T1 was a sea going torpedo boat of the Yugoslav navy between 1921 and 1941. Originally built as 76 T, a 250t-class torpedo boat built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy in 1913, she was armed with two 66 mm (2.6 in) guns and four 450 mm (17.7 in) torpedo tubes, and could carry 10–12 naval mines. She saw active service with the Austro Hungarian Navy during World War 1…” I feel the extra detail of the T-class, Skoda and L/30 guns is again a bit much for the lead and might be better confined to the main body.
 * I agree, I've made those suggested changes.


 * Background: I appreciate the comments above about Bay of Kotor, but coming to the article fresh, before having read the comments above, I found this confusing. At first I thought that Bocche di Cattaro was in the Bay of Kotor and couldn’t fathom why the Bocche is linked to the Bay article. It’s only from more carefully looking at the Bay article, and reading the comments above, that this layout makes sense. I personally would be inclined to display it as “… base at the Bay of Kotor (Bocche di Cattaro)… “ if indeed, Bocche di Cattaro is even needed? Surely the Bay of Kotor must cover the entire area of installations and therefore be accurate enough in itself?
 * The issue here is that the sources for that period mainly refer to the Austro-Hungarian base using its Italian name (which is weird), but I am happy either way. I've implemented your suggestion of reversing the names.


 * Background: I’m a little concerned that none of the strategic reasons for her build appear to be referenced. Does Conway’s ref in the second to last sentence cover all the detail in the preceding paragraph?
 * Yes.


 * Description: Why does Greger appear as a source before the end of the first sentence? If it only includes detail on the change in armament, is there a source for the reason for the change (ie. that it was “in order to standardise the armament with the following F-group”)?
 * Because Greger only covers the change, and the next citation covers why the change occurred.


 * World War I: I always learned at school that the first sentence of a paragraph should introduce the content of that paragraph. Here, the first sentence alludes to issues with the class design but does not expand on it, and this makes the paragraph look rather odd. How were the ongoing problems with the boats related to her deployment in the war? I rather think this sentence fits better in the preceding section as a closer, rather than the opener of her WWI service. Doing this would, I believe, make the rest of this paragraph flow more naturally.
 * I agree. I've moved it up to the Description section.


 * Post-War: Is there any information of her fate after being stricken?
 * Not that I'm aware of.

That’s about all, otherwise a nice little piece. Cheers, Ranger Steve   Talk  09:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, . I think I've addressed all your comments. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * All looks good . My only outstanding query is the armament reference again. The reason I had not imagined that the next citation in the paragraph after Greger appears mid-sentence, is because the next citation used in that paragraph is the same source again (Greger, p58), and seems to relate more to the construction and launching of the vessel. If Greger is the source for all of the armament information, I'd be inclined to put that reference at the end of the bit about mines, which seems a bit more conventional. It would also clarify that the mines and reason for the armament change (“in order to standardise the armament with the following F-group”) is referenced - my original query was because it really doesn't appear to be.


 * Also, Looking more closely at the paragraph again, given that the second half is not really anything to do with the first, I'd be inclined to split it into two. So I'd envisage it looking like this:


 * The boats were originally to be armed with three Škoda 66 mm (2.6 in)L/30[a] guns, and three 450 mm (17.7 in) torpedo tubes,[1] but this was changed to two guns and four torpedo tubes before the first boat was completed in order to standardise the armament with the following F-group. They could also carry 10–12 naval mines.[2]


 * 76 T was the third of its class to be completed, and was laid down on 24 June 1913, launched on 15 December 1913, and completed on 20 July 1914. Eight T-group boats were completed between February and December 1914, designated 74 T – 81 T.[2] In 1914, one 8 mm (0.31 in) machine gun was added.[1]


 * Hope that makes sense! Ranger Steve   Talk  07:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perfect sense. Done. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. I've made a tiny prose change and can definitely support this article. Ranger Steve   Talk  11:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This one looks ok. Can I have dispensation to nominate a fresh one? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. -- Laser brain  (talk)  07:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unless I've missed it, I think we'd need a source review before wrapping this one up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Other books checked I can't see the pages needed. Happy to AGF unless someone has a better idea... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Source review - doing now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Earwigs copyvio clear.
 * References formatted consistently.
 * Niehorster used once - faithful to source.
 * Tks Cas, I think PM has had spotchecks before without any serious issues being discovered so I feel confident we can leave it at that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.