Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Radetzky

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.

Not promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Radetzky[edit]

Nominator(s): White Shadows We live in a beautiful world, Parsecboy talk
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article managed to pass a GAN a while back and with the addition of many other sources as well as information on the ship's actions during World War I, such as the bombardment of Ancona, I believe that SMS Radetzky easily passes the A-class criteria. Other ships that contained similar information such as here sister ship SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand managed to pass an ACR and eventually go on to become a TFA. Any comments or questions are welcome to either me, or Pasecboy, who managed to bring this article to GA status and agreed to a co-nomination. All the best and Happy New Year,--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 03:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passes A1 specific, pretty good, some work needed: Publisher location required for "Miller, Francis Trevelyan (1916)."; publisher location required for "Vego, Milan N. (1996)."; Hore is only cited once, you don't need the title in parens "Hore (Battleships), p. 180" ; DANFS has a title, DANFS has a corporate author, DANFS has a publication location, work in collection-of-works not cited correctly ""Zrinyi". USN Historical Center. Retrieved 8 September 2009." ; n-dashes " – " missing from page ranges in Sokol pp. citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Congrats on the work! Fifelfoo (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think between the two of us, we fixed the problems you identified. Can you check the DANFS citation again and see if I missed anything? Thanks for checking these. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The DANFS citation looks good to me. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This article is in good shape and makes good use of the available references, but needs a bit more work to reach A class:
    • "SMS Radetzky was the lead ship of the three Radetzky class of pre-dreadnought battleships (Schlachtschiff) of the Austro-Hungarian Navy (K.u.K. Kriegsmarine)" is rather awkward (too many 'of the's I think). I'd suggest something like 'SMS Radetzky was the first of the Austro-Hungarian Navy (K.u.K. Kriegsmarine)'s three Radetzky class pre-dreadnought battleships'
    • What's the purpose of including the German translation of 'battleship'? Does 'Schlachtschiff' have a different meaning to 'battleship'? - if not, it should be removed as it's confusing to readers (and why only translate this word?)
    • What was/is the Stabilimento Tecnico? (a shipyard, I presume; this needs to be specified)
      • The STT was a shipbuilding company in Trieste that built many of Austria-Hungary's battleships. I've noted that in the test right before the company's name.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calling a seven year old vessel "the old battleship" seems unjustified
    • "both ships were also laid down at the Stabilimento Tecnico" - why only 'laid down' - were they moved elsewhere during construction?
    • "By 1913, the new dreadnoughts of the Tegetthoff class were coming into active service, and so Radetzky and her sisters were shifted to the 2nd Division of the 1st Battle Squadron." - what unit were they in before this change (the 1st Division I assume), and did it signify anything other than a redesignation? (eg, did the ships' role change?)
    • I added that they were in the 1st Division beforehand. As for any role changes...well, it World War I did not start when it did (less than a year after the Division change) then the ships of the Radetzky class would have been given lesser roles in the fleet but they were still new enough to use alongside the newer ship up until World War I. In short, the only role changes that the ships saw, did not take place until after the Bombardment of Ancona in World War I.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 17:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "At the outbreak of World War I in the summer of 1914" - terms like 'the summer' shouldn't be used as dates per WP:MOS#Longer periods
    • The third sentence of the para which begins with 'On 23 May 1915' contradicts the second sentence (Montenegro wasn't part of Italy)
    • The amount of detail on the raid against Ancona seems excessive given that this ship played a (important) supporting role, and didn't bombard the raid's primary targets
    • "The attack on Ancona was an immense success, as the Austro-Hungarian ships were largely unopposed during the entire operation" - only not being shot at much doesn't seem sufficient to earn an "immense success", particularly as its later stated that the raid caused lots of damage. I think that this sentence is out of place as well as it pre-empts the fairly detailed description of the operation's results
    • The various Austrian and Italian warships mentioned during the description of the raid should also probably be red linked per WP:REDLINK as they're all notable
    • "63 Italians, both civilians and military personnel alike" - this could be simplified to "63 Italian civilians and military personnel"
    • "the remainder of the war saw Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand and the rest of the Austro-Hungarian Navy acting as a fleet in being" - why is Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand being given as an example here?
      • I'm sorry. That was a major mistake on my part. You see, I took that section of the text from EFF and forgot to remove it. I'm sorry about that and replaced the words with "Radetzky".--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 18:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "With his fleet blockaded in the Adriatic Sea, and with a shortage of coal" - one too many 'with' here I think
    • "Haus enacted a strategy based on mines and submarines" - this seems needlessly vague. Could you say something like 'Haus attempted used mines and submarines'?
    • "On November 10, 1918, one day before the armistice" - this was actually six days after the armistice between Austria and Italy (the Armistice of Villa Giusti) came into effect
    • "However, under the subsequent peace treaty, the Allied powers ignored the transfer of the Austro-Hungarian ships to the Yugoslav navy" is unclear and could be simplified
    • How is that unclear? I understand the phrase just fine...--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 00:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnote 1 needs a reference Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I beg to differ Nick, EFF, another FA article, has the exact footnote and no reference was not required for it. If you still insist on a reference for the footnote, I'll just delete it...--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 00:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • WS, if you're saying that you don't have to cite it because it's a footnote to the lead section and the material is cited where it appears below the lead, that's fine; you might want to tell Nick where it's cited. If you're saying that it's not cited anywhere in the article, please see WP:CHALLENGED. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • this is a little repetitive: "they only wanted the Austro-Hungarian fleet to steam only as far" ('only' used twice);
    • this seems unclear to me: "one Italian destroyer managed to escape the Austrian but the Turbine was severely damaged" (I'm assuming from the capitalisation and the redlink that 'Turbine' is the name of the Italian ship, but it might be mistaken for a component of the damaged destroyer);
    • Per WP:MOSNUM numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out. Hence "63 Italian civilians and military" needs to 'sixty-three'; and
    • Punctuation here is also off " 63 Italian civilians and military personnel, were killed in the bombardment" (remove the comma IMO). Anotherclown (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Radetzky was the second ship of the class to be laid down..." The usage here is a little off, I think. Normally one would say "her hull was laid down," which refers to the actual laying down of a line of steel plates on the floor of the dock, which go on to become her keel plates. Rumiton (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying a ship is laid down is perfectly fine - though if you want to get technical, the keel is laid, not the hull. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • according to the tools there is one disambig link that should be fixed if possible: [1];
    • ext links work, alt text is present (no action required);
    • not sure about this, but I seem to remember on previous ACRs that it has been said that the name class should be hyphenated, thus "Radetzky class" should be "Radetzky-class" and "Tegetthoff class" should be "Tegetthoff-class". Apologies if I'm wrong about this;
      • Yes, we're going with the hyphen if it's in front of a noun (there's more support for that in style guides, but not universal support), but "dreadnoughts of the Tegetthoff class were" is correct without the hyphen. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the lead, "In the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye" might sound better as "Under the terms of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye";
    • in the Construction section: "Radetzly was launched on 3 July 1909" (should this be Radetzky?);
    • in the World War I section, there is some repetition here: "made clear they only wanted the Austro-Hungarian fleet to steam only as far " (repeat use of the word "only");
    • in the World War I section, "the Turbine" - is this correct, or should it just be "Turbine" (removing the definate article "the");
      • I changed "... one Italian destroyer managed to escape the Austrian but the Turbine was severely damaged." to "... but the other, Turbine, ..." (This is the first mention of Turbine.) I changed the second instance of "the Turbine" to "Turbine". - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • there is a mixture of US and British English spelling, for instance in the infobox "Armour", but in the prose "armored";
    • in the World War I section, there is some repetition in this sentence: "During the attack on Ancona and the surrounding coastline, Radetzky, as well as the cruisers SMS Admiral Spaun and SMS Helgoland , and the destroyers SMS Orjen, SMS Lika Csepel, and SMS Tátra traveled south to cover the ships bombarding Ancona." (starts with "attack on Ancona" and ends with "bombarding Ancona");
    • there is incosistent presentation of "pre-dreadnought" (sometimes lower case, e.g. in Pre-war section; sometime upper case, e.g. in Footnote # 1);
    • End of the War section: use of the abbreviation USN without formally introducing it. Some readers will not know that this means United States Navy
      • If an article needs to repeat "USN" many times for some reason, the acronym might be okay, but I haven't yet seen that article. "US Navy" isn't oppressive to write out, and everyone understands it. I replaced the one instance of "USN" I found. - Dank (push to talk) 18:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • End of the War section: I think that this is incorrectly capitalised, per WP:MOSHEAD it should be "End of the war";
    • End of the War section: "Radetzky was broken up in Italy between 1920–1921". I think this should be: "Radetzky was broken up in Italy between 1920 and 1921", per the guidance in WP:ENDASH where it states that ranges using prepositions shouldn't use an endash;
    • in the Footnotes section, would it be possible to add a citation to # 1 and add page numbers to # 2?
    • in the References section, I think that the title of the Vego work is incorrectly capitalised. Per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles I think it should be "Austro-Hungarian Naval Policy, 1904–14";
    • per the discussion here, you may need to consider moving the Portal icon to the top of the Notes section if you are wanting to take it to FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: this ACR will be due to be listed for closing in under 48 hours time. Most of my concerns have not been addressed and unfortunately, as such, I feel I must oppose this article's promotion to A-class. If they can be addressed in the allotted time, I would be more than happy to change my vote, though. As such, is anyone in a position to respond to these comments? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • AR has asked me to offer feedback as I have time. I agree with everything he just said, and I added a few notes. I'm going to wait for a support or two before I copyedit this one. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • No supporting cites for the armor and crew data in the infobox.
  • No bullet lists in the infobox, see [2]
  • Link Fermo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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_Radetzky&oldid=1136064624"