Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Austria-Hungary/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:13, 13 August 2010 [1].

List of battleships of Austria-Hungary edit

Nominator(s): White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 15:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've addressed all of the issues from the last FLC of this list and added in a book that was missing from this page that resulted in the failure of the first FLC, Anthony Sokol's The Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Navy. Feel free to make any comments and let me know of any issues that you see. (I modeled this off of Parsec's List of battleships of Germany list which is currently a FL) White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 15:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 18:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 17:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)]][reply]

#The appointment of Admiral Hermann von Spaun to the post of State Secretary of the Navy in 1897 accelerated naval construction. Does this sentence properly belong to the first paragraph of the lead, not the second? He whad been appointed well before the first pre-dreadnoughts were built.

I've moved that around to make sense chronologically speaking.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 16:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The program returned to normal construction at that time Does it mean that construction before had been abnormal? If yes, than it should be clarified in what respect.
I've fixed that.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 17:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you specifies years for images?
I've removed that.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 16:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~The table of Erzherzog Karl class battleships is not in a chronological order. SMS Erzherzog Friedrich was laid down, launched and commissioned earlier than SMS Erzherzog Ferdinand Max.~~
I know I did that on purpose ;)--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 21:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what ? Ruslik_Zero 17:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to fit in chronological order.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 17:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add exact dates when all ships were laid down? For many of them only years are specified.
I've found all of the dates for these ships and added them in.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 17:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Ruslik_Zero 19:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments2:

Like the members of the Habsburg-class before them, all of the battleships of the Erzherzog Karl-class were built in the Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino shipyards in Trieste. The section about Habsburg-class does not mention this fact.
Added that in.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 18:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Construction on the remaining two battleships, Erzherzog Ferdinand Max and Erzherzog Friedrich continued up to 1904. According to the table it continued until 1907.
No. That was when they were commissioned. Having a battleship finished and having actually commissioned into the navy are two totally different things.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 18:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erzherzog was laid down in 1904. It can not be said to be constructed up to 1904. Ruslik_Zero 18:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed that to say "....up to 1905" per the table.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 17:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The three Erzherzog Karl-class battleships were considered modern for their small size. I do not understand what this means.
That means that although they were smaller than most other battleships of other navies, they were still considered modern.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life}18:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should clarify this sentence. Ruslik_Zero 18:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to the war, all three battleships were assigned to the 2nd Division of the 1st Battle Squadron, along with the Tegetthoff-class battleships in the 1st Division. Why does not the article mention squadrons to which battleships of two previous classes (Habsburg and Erzherzog) were assigned to?
I've added that in.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the footnote These included (among others) the Monarch-class battleships and Kronprinz-class battleships (both coastal defense ships) If they were battleships why does not they included in this list?
People call them battleships sometimes but in reality, they were only coastal defense ships. As a result they are not mentioned in the list.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 18:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should clarify this. Ruslik_Zero 18:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have. I said that they were really coastal defense ships....--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 20:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Say this in the text. Ruslik_Zero 17:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? That's the whole reason that notes exist.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 17:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the text of the note. Ruslik_Zero 18:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the caption of the first figure An unidentified member of the Habsburg-class before World War I. I, however, found in http://www.cityofart.net/bship/sms_habsburg.html that it is "SMS Habsburg on trials in the upper Adriatic in 1901".
I've added that in to the caption and the file itself.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 18:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that you can find more information about other images too. Ruslik_Zero 18:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No more images need info....--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 20:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about the image in the lead? Ruslik_Zero 17:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the date, 1914.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 17:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik_Zero 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I do not see any further problems. Ruslik_Zero 17:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's Ships, they use €300-books, what can you do but support. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 14:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

Locations for the books- give them all. The Fitzsimons and Greiger books currently lack them, though an educated guess says the Greiger one would be Ann Arbor.

I've added in the locations, Columbia SC for Fitzsimons and yes you were correct about Greger being in Ann Arbor.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 17:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia House, despite the name, has never been located in Columbia, SC. Courcelles (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That link that you gave me takes you to a record label :)--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 18:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcat says Milwaukee. I remember that the same Columbia House that sold music also sold these sort of books back in the day. Gosh, I'm making amountain out of a molehill. I'll cap these all off tonight. Courcelles (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :)--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at how FA USS Indiana (BB-1) cites DANFS- citation 14, compared to your citation 17. You're not linking works and publishers so don't copy that, but other than that, Indiana is doing it correctly.

I think that I've added in the missing info to the citation but can you check to make sure?--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 17:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes [2] a reliable source?

I trust it but as a safeguard, I've replaced it with another online source that can be trusted as it is used on other AH BB's. If you still have any issues, just let me know.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 02:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm compelled to question [3] as well.

I have a replacement for this one. Just give me a while to add it in. I'll likely do this tomorrow.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 02:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"~~first and~~ only class" Redundant

Removed the "first and" part.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 16:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"all of the battleships were handed over to France, Great Britain, the United States, or Italy.[3]" The sections on the classes don't indicate any ever being given to the United States...

I'm sorry; some of them were handed over to the US immediately after the war but were given to Italy soon after such as SMS Zrinyi. So you want me to make a note of this in the text or something along those lines?--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 02:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, right now the text reads like it was a direct handover from Austria-Hungary to the Kingdom of Italy. Courcelles (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've added in a note. Tell me what you think about it and if there are any issues, I'll try to fix them.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 02:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Courcelles (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Courcelles (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

I'm very happy to see that Sokol is being cited, but I'd really like to see more of Greger, a book more focused on the ship themselves. But I'm trying to get a copy myself so I can see what might have been missed.
- I've looked everywhere for a copy of Greger's book but there are no copies on Amazon or any other sites. It also doesn't seem to be in the ILL or perhaps I'm not looking in the right places but even if I found a copy for purchase, I simply do not have enough money to buy another book right now. If you can somehow get your hands on it I'd appreciate it :)--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Has Sturmvogel been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've just done it now.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 16:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Watch for the citation numbers being out of order. Forex cite 24 might be listed after cite 25. There's at least one example involving Greger that I caught.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll get that fixed.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - More detailed comments after I've added all relevant info from Greger:
    - Reference titles should follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles and some need place of publication.
      - Like some others, I think that I've fixed the issue with the capitalization of book titles but I'm not 100% sure. Please check o make sure that I did not mess up or anything :)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 03:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fitzsimmons needs either OCLC or ISBN #, Sokol needs OCLC number.
      - Added OCLC numbers for both of them.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 03:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why aren't rowspan commands used to combine identical cells?
      - I honestly have no clue what you are talking about in this case. Can you try to run that over me again?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 03:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Rowspans implemented. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What makes ref 22 reliable?
      - Replaced the citation.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 04:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most place names should be linked on first occurrence.
      - I believe that I've fixed that (as well as correcting any over-linking issues) but I could be wrong. If there are any links that I left out, just tell me.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 03:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lots of little niggles, but nothing that won't prevent me from supporting once they're fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Any chance you could be more descriptive in the lead image caption?
- This was brought up before and I tried to make it as descriptive as possible while still making the caption correct. The exact date of the image is unknown but I do know that it was taken in 1914 but prior to 28 July 1914, the date that World War I began.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 19:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not too worried about the date, but what exactly am I looking at? Which ships are these? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The source does not say but I think that based off of looking at it, they are the pre-dreadnoughts, likely to be the Erzherzog's and the Radetzky's which were the most modern of the pre-dreadnoughts. This is all WP:OR though so I'd rather not add it in.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 19:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - So what does the source say? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        "Fleet steaming out to sea" under the Austria-Hungary section. However earlier it says that the image is prior to 28 July 1914.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 20:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So how are you sure this image is even relevant? (It may be obvious to you, but to the rest of us...?) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        How is it not relevant? It's an image of Austro-Hungarian BB's steaming out to sea for use on the List of battleships of Austria-Hungary; what more do you want?.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 20:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I asked how you're sure it is. I asked what the information you had about the image was. I just feel a little disappointed that all I see (as a non-expert) and all I'm told about (as a non-expert) is that this is a grainy image of a bunch of ships. That's all. Hopefully you can go some way to understanding how I'd feel a little cheated? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        OK. I understand. Sorry for coming off a bit rude. I was not trying to be defensive or anything, just answer your concerns. Parsecboy was the one who uploaded the image for me. I've told you everything I know about it so you may want to ask him for more on the image. Images are not my specialty if you know what I mean.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 21:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any link for State Secretary of the Navy? Or an article (albeit a stub) for the Admiral?
- There is no link for the State Secretary of the Navy (Austria-Hungary) and as for the Admiral, I'd rather steer clear from people, living or dead. I simply do not have enough sources to write even a modest stub on him. If someone else creates the article down the road, I'll gladly assist in adding my sources to it though.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 19:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - If you speak any German at all, the dewiki article would give you enough to create a basic stub. Courcelles (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh....I don't really speak any German. Is there someone here on en.wiki that can and is willing to make this a blue link?--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 19:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"had succeeded in producing 13 " why not just "had produced 13"?
- Fixed.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 19:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SMS Habsburg caption, shouldn't the name of the ship be in italics?
- Fixed.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 19:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 cylinder->Two-cylinder (check others)
- All fixed.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 19:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similar comment for Erzherzog, shouldn't it be in italics? And you should be consistent with diacritics.
- I don't see any diacritics in the Erzherzog's. Are you sure? I have fixed the italics issue though.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 19:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"on 1–3 February" can't really have a "on" for a range of dates.
- Reworded to say "between 1-3 February".--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 14:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zrinyi-> check diacritics throughout.
- Fixed.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 19:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Sunk by a mine on 1 November 1918 at Pola.[13]" a full stop here but not elsewhere similar, be consistent.
- Removed period for consistency.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 14:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"[25][24]" can you put these in order?
- Fixed.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 19:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes navweaps.com a WP:RS?
- navweaps.com is a RS. It has been used on countless GA's like German Type IXA submarine and is one of the only sources for the weaponry of BB's and U-boats. If you don't believe me, ask others like Ed or Sturmvogel.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 18:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I don't want "ask [...] Ed or Sturmvogel", I want you to prove it's a reliable source. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I told you that because they (mostly Sturmvogel) showed me navweaps.com in the first place. I don't know how to "prove it" to you other than showing you that we use it on several other GA's.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 19:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough, but the onus, in this case, is on you to prove to me that the source meets WP:RS. Not trying to be difficult, just asking a simple question, what makes this source reliable? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        TRM, WS, et all, this is what you are looking for with regards to Navweaps.com: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Neutral_opinion_needed_for_a_website_source -MBK₀₀₄ 01:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you!--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same for viribusunitis.ca?
- If you'd like, I can replace this.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 18:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's not a WP:RS then it must be replaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done :)--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 19:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.