# Talk:Yugoslav submarine Smeli

While Antonio Bajamonti is most commonly known under his name written with J, the Italian navy's website lists the submarine under the name "Antonio Baiamonti". Jane's and Conway's dito. I assume, the J stems from the Croat/German spelling of an originally Italian name, which would not have used that letter but rather an I. I am, of course, not a linguist, but the spelling is, well "original". ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Not that original, actually. Bagnasco (cited), Maurizio Brescia, Luciano Monzali, Franco Botta, ‎Italo Garzia and ‎Pasquale Guaragnella (among other Italians) use that spelling, and Bajamonti himself was a Dalmatian Italian, which would go some way toward explaining it. There are 117 hits on Google Books for the "j" spelling, and 106 for the "i" spelling. I'm going to stick with Bagnasco and Brescia, Bagnasco uses the "j" even in the Italian version. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 22:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The j is just old-fashioned. Word-initial and intervocalic  i used to often be written j in Italian. They are spelling variants like connection/connexion or realise/realize. Modern Italian avoids j in most cases. Srnec (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it, but two reliable Italian sources use "j". We go with the sources here, don't we? Regards, Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 03:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC
That's my thinking. Unfortunately we won't be able to have a look on the original documents. More confusingly, the official history of the Italian Navy is using both spellings. So, for all practical reasons the J is preferable, as that is consistent with the article on the person it was named after. Apart from that: Where is the translation coming from? Jane's (1940, p 518) translates Smeli as "ardent".  ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC) BTW Thanks for the update, Srnec.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yugoslav submarine Smeli/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 20:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian  (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Peacemaker67, I've completed a quite thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it exceeds the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have a few comments and questions below that must first be addressed before continuing. Once again, thank you for all your continued hard work and contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian  (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the submarine, establishes the submarine's necessary context, and explains why the submarine is otherwise notable.
The info box for the submarine is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the referenced cited therein.
Again, it's a shame there is no free image of the Smeli in the info box, but I repeat that this is not a deal breaker for GA.
The lede could stand to include more information from the Description subsection, such as mentioning her partial double hull design. Other descriptions of the size wouldn't hurt, either.
The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.
History

Description

It should be mentioned in this section that Smeli means Daring in the Serbian language. (Or is Smeli a word from another one of the Yugoslav kingdom's languages?)
This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.
Construction

Should Maschinenfabrik be spelled out either in parentheses after "MAN" or with "MAN" in parentheses after Maschinenfabrik?
Smeli should be mentioned at least once in this subsection, rather than exclusively referring to her as "she."
This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.
Career and fate

I suggest adding the accent for "attaché" in the first paragraph.
It should be mentioned briefly with either the first or second mention of the Bay of Kotor that it is a bay of the Adriatic Sea to provide greater geographical context.
There should be a wiki-link to Scuttling in the prose for those readers not familiar with this act of deliberately sinking a ship.
As you can see, my only minor comments and concerns are the same as those with the Osvetnik article, and will require much fixing.
This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.
Thanks very much for your thorough review, West Virginian! I have addressed all your comments except the image, as I am yet to locate a PD image of her. My edits are here. Regards, Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 00:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, thanks for your timely response to my above comments regarding this article. Upon my re-review of the article, I find that you've adequately addressed my concerns and it is hereby a pleasure for me to pass this article to Good Article status! Congratulations on another job well done! -- West Virginian  (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)