Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Habsburg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Withdrawn at nominator's request -MBK004 06:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Habsburg[edit]

Nominator(s): White Shadows talk
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because User:White Shadows asked me to do so. Comments would be nice. Buggie111 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm nominating this article for an A-Class review because I think that it meets all of the required criteria. It's well referenced, covers all of the main points (or lack of points as the AH navy simply rotted away at port for 15+ years) and is should be gramatically correct and contains pictures. Any comments or concers would be welcome :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • There are books listed that are not used in the article. Why? Tucker's book is an encyclopedia. Don't source an encyclopedia article with another encyclopedia. --Brad (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never knew that. Is there a specific policy stating that? Buggie111 (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the books that are not used in the article. And Is there and rule or policy or even an A-class criteria that discounts encyclopedias?--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removing the books wasn't the answer I was looking for. When I see books listed that weren't cited as sources I begin to wonder why they weren't used to round out the article. Why where they listed and not used?
    • I have seen several articles get smacked at FAC for citing an encyclopedia and if I'm not mistaken Ed had this problem once.
    • Additionally what makes the following reliable sources?
    • Ed and Sturmvogel know these ships much better than I and if they're claiming that there is not enough research and information I'm inclined to agree with them. --Brad (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, what makes them not a RS? And can you please show me a link to Ed's FAC that got failed due to his use of an encyclopedia? And I added the books in there by accident. I never intended to use them in the article and I copied the set from the main article, Habsburg class battleship. Sorry for the confusion.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I understand the problems inherent in writing about a ship that rarely left port and that there are a dearth of sources on such a ship. However, two paragraphs of information is simply not enough for me. I can't suggest any additional sources, but foreign-language ones may be necessary if this is to receive a full account. What I can suggest aside from that:
    • "After Italy entered the war on the side of France and Great Britain, the Austro-Hungarian navy bombarded several Italian port cities along the Adriatic coast. Habsburg took part in the bombardment of Ancona." -- okay, what cities. What did Habsburg do? Find books that detail these actions (as opposed to warship-oriented books). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found out was places Habsburg bombarded on her own in the bombardment of Ancona as well as adding in a few more citatins and overall small expansions of the service history of the ship. However, you may still think that there is not enough info but every source that I find tells me that she remained in her moorings for the rest of the war and only left port once to go on target practice due to a shortage of coal.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This seems a bit lacking in sources. Why no reference to The Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Navy by Sokol? Or The development of the Austro-Hungarian navy 1897 - 1914 : a study in the operation of dualism or Seemacht Österreich : die kaiserlich und königliche Kriegsmarine, 1382-1918. I pulled these up on OCLC with a simple search on Austro-Hungarian Navy. I'm sure that there are other sources that might be useful in expanding this ship's history like Warship International.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • From Warship International:
      • Austrian dreadnoughts in WWI – Their data and final fate. Rene Greger. 1/65:9.
      • Austro-Hungarian battleships. R. F. Scheltema de Heere. N1/73:11. §N3/73:231(2): §N4/73:351; §N1/74:12; §N2/74:172; §N4/74:381; §N4/80:307. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. I'll try to add in those sources. (Though I doubt that I'll be able to expand the text itself)--White Shadows you're breaking up 13:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • no dab links, ext links work (no action required);
    • images seem appropriately licenced (no action required);
    • just a suggestion, but alt text could be added to the images. I know it is not currently a requirement, but I think it would make sense to add it in while we are here in case it becomes a requirement again (but I wouldn't oppose on this by itself);
    • could the lead be expanded a bit to clarify the lack of service history?
    • please check whether you are using British or American English; in the Peacetime section you have "defence", but in the World War I section you have "defense". (You also have "harbor" so I'm assumning it is US spelling you are using);
    • in the References section two of the ISBNs have hyphens, the others don't;
    • in the Footnotes section Footnote # 1 uses "&" and # 8 uses "and" - it should be consistent;
    • also in the Footnotes section Footnote # 8 has a year, but none of the others have them. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the year required for all of the footnotes or am I allowed to remove the one year considering that there is a full set of books with all of the information in the bibliography section?--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who crossed out you comments. (Helps me figure out which ones are done. If you consider this refractoring your comments then just tell me and I'll revert them)--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me, but I'd advise caution with it. Some editors might not like it, so I'd suggest putting {{Done}} beside it (which will produce a green tick) and letting them decide if you've addressed their concerns. Regarding the years in citations, it is not a requirement so it can be removed if you want, however, if you have it for one you should have it for all IMO. Regarding the ISBN hyphens I don't believe there is a requirement for them to be there, or not to be there, just that you are consistent in your approach. If you want to not use them, they can just be manually removed by deleting them in edit mode. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it was not appropriate to use the Done checkmark in ACR's. Thanks for the clarification. I'll also go and remove the hyphens and the year as well. After that, I'll have addressed all of your comments.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right about the ticks. Some editors at ACR try to avoid both ticks and strikes by simply responding below the point saying what they've done to address it and then letting the reviewer decide whether or not they've addressed their comments (and to strike or put the done ticks). If you are at all concerned, I'd suggest taking that third approach as it should (hopefully) be the less likely to get you into trouble. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done with all of your comments. And I'll take your advice on that now.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSupport: All my concerns have been met. I believe that there's little more in the way of content that could be added (although I don't know much about ships articles), so I am happy to support. Can those that have opposed please take another look and state whether their opposes still stand or whether concerns have been met? Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for this one and SMS Árpád, and I want to stress that this isn't a criticism of the editors or their skill with this article or their selection of a topic. Some readers are quite interested in the design and engineering of these ships, of course, but I suspect the bulk of the readership of A-class ship articles are more interested in what happened, and what happened is 3 paragraphs for this ship and 2 paragraphs for the Árpád, and apparently nothing more is on the way. A-class is a kind of "branding", a way of pointing readers to the articles we're proudest of and that we think they'll enjoy the most, and it's a bad idea to "dilute the brand", as the marketers say, because readers (like it or not) will make assumptions about A-class articles they haven't read based on the ones they've read. I wouldn't want this to be their introduction to our A-class articles. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm probably losing some people here talking about branding. This is from brand: "Individual brand names naturally allow greater flexibility by permitting a variety of different products, of differing quality, to be sold without confusing the consumer's perception of what business the company is in or diluting higher quality products." That's my point; "branding" these two articles as GAs, and providing links to the GA and A-class reviews, as we do, gives appropriate credit and lets readers see the attention to detail and the nice things people said about the articles, without changing their expectations of A-class articles in general. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree on both accounts. I think that opposeing this ACR based off of other articles is quite frankly rude and insulting to me and Buggie111. The service recoed secion is so small bacuase they never did anything. It's not our fault that the AHN rotted in port for 15+ years. There is no loack of information. Every detail about this ship has been given and every action that she did has been discussed in the text. Not a single point has been left out. As a result, the artice covers thye topic very throughly even though there was a lack of actions that the battleship(s) actually did.--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading one FA reviewer who said that he'd oppose anything under 20k as not being notable enough to deserve FA status. Perhaps that's part of what you're running into here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I once had that same thought in my head. I withdraw my co-nom, as RL and other stuff is taking up alot of time. Buggie111 (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to still carry the nomination on. Gentlemen, let me ask you all a question. What good is it to oppose an article for an ACR if it is under 20K? I understand the concept but every detail (or lack thereoff) has been brought forth in this ACR. This article whent from just barely a GA to one of my best pieces of work due to this and yet I have yet to recive a single support. I'm not asking for sympathy votes but if there is no material about this ship, well then there just is not material. Simply, she left port for exercises in 1904-05, bombarded a few ey places in Ancona in 1915 and whent back to pola for 3 1/2 years. I took that little sentence and expanded it to 3 paragraphs. There are 5 requirements to an AC article:
  • A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
  • A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
  • A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
  • A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
  • A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.
No where does it say, this article must be X characters long or xK in size. This allows articles like this one to become AC articles. SMS Habsburg meets all of these requirements and more. It does cover all major facts and details since there are only 3 major details to cover. That does'nt mean that it should fail, just that there is less to talk about than other articles.--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added my support above because all my concerns have been addressed and to be honest I don't feel that there is anything else that can be added to the article (I am, of course, however, a layman). Unless someone can state specifically what else needs to be included in the article, I don't think it if fair on the article or the editor to oppose due to a lack of content. ACR concerns should be actionable. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eventual Support I'm planning to support this once the issues with prose are addressed. I'm not a judge of the ship's overall importance, but it seems to me that the issues of the AH navy itself are notable. I'd like to see this article put the navy itself into context (this article and Parsec's Erzherzog. How big was the navy? what did the advent of the Tetterhof (?) ships entail? Were they bigger/faster/better, thus making the Habsburg obsolete? AH's 19th and 20th century problems were acerbated in part by its limited ports, and the difficulty of maintaining blue water access from the Adriatic. I've made some specific suggestions to Parsec, and I'd like to see if he and Buggie and White shadows can deal with them. As for the prose issues on Habsburg (and I suppose Arpad, but I haven't read it yet), I'll help with those. If the action of the ships was limited, then so be it. However, if that's the case, perhaps it's interesting not only to focus on the details of the ship (specifications) but also on the big picture of the ship and the navy. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You pointed out that there was an issue with the prose. Can you point out where as I'm not the greatest writer on wikipedia. Is a copy-edit in need? As for the "whole picture" idea, I agree with you and I'll try to add some more detail about Habsburg's role in the AHN in the next few days. Thanks.--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a light ce, and it's better now (although not perfect). Go ahead and add, and then we'll see what needs to happen prose-wise. Basically, it was very repetitive. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to add something about the navy generally, let me know when you've done it. I found some additional material (although in Germany) on the details of the shelling of Anacona. here. and here is the Austro-Hungarian Navy Order of Battle in August 1914. There is more on the Arpad here. She apparently had an additional foray in 1917? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll try to incorporate that into the articles if possible :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone here speek German, because I certainly do not.--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My German isn't great but I'll give it a shot, what would you like translated? - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much anything that mentions Habsburg or Aprad in it :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, if you follow those links I posted above, it will take you to the sections of the books that mention the Arpad and the Habsburg. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a problem on the List of the ships, under the class: Erzherzog Ferdinand Max class, SMS Habsburg (1868) links to this ship. You'll needs someone who reads German, and there are several people in the project, including myself, who do. The Order of Battle is self-evident, however. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but what did you mean by the first sentence or two?--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the template at the bottom of the article links to this article: List_of_ships_of_the_Austro-Hungarian_Navy, and under this section, List_of_ships_of_the_Austro-Hungarian_Navy#Armorclad ships and River Monitors, the list shows the Erzherzog Ferdinand Max class includes SMS Habsburg (1865).. That Habsburg is not the same as the subject of the article under review, although it links to the article. This needs to be fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

where is this going? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not know. Some artilces just will never pass an ACR....--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been able to incorporate some of the other material? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dank has not translated it yet. When he does I'll add it in.--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure he's planning on doing it. Your response to him was fairly ambiguous--the parts that mention the ship. Did you look at the text? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. But I cannot even read what it says in German due to the wierd hand writeing...--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I formally withdraw my nomination of this ACR. Perhaps I'll come back to it at a later date but it has become obvious that it will not pass at this time. Thanks for !voteing :)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/SMS_Habsburg&oldid=1136064627"