Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand/archive2

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 Laser brain 01:46, 22 November 2010 [1].

SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand

SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • External links
Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC) and White Shadows[reply]

Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand was a pre-dreadnought Radetzky class battleship, which served a bit during World War 1, ultimately ending up in Italian hands. Not so much info is available, but I think User:White Shadows, User:Parsecboy and I have added as much info as we could find. This is the first non perma-stub I have created, and might become my frist FA. She has gone through a Milhist ACr, and has failed a FAC due to the absense of a major source. THe prose has not changed much since the last FAC, so I think this should pass with a tad fewer comments. I look forward to your comments. Buggie111 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. No problems with dablinks. ; one dead external link: [2]. PL290 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding my signature here to verify that this is a joint nom between us. Feel free to contact me, Parsec of Buggie.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 2c. Bibliography, shouldn't "– (2006)." be displaying as "——— (2006)." ? (re: Hore 2006b). If you're using states with Westport and West Lafayette, shouldn't Annapolis and New York have states? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ws has fixed the states, but I don't see the difference in what authormask the next Hore ref uses. Could you help show me how to fix it? Buggie111 (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Citation/core is inadequately tested. Replaced |authormask=2 with |authormask=——— Fifelfoo (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • What makes http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/radetzky_class.htm#Erzherzog a reliable, high quality source?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ill remove. I believe it's cited in Hore. Buggie111 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has this been done? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so, yes.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - comments now adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Comments per request on my talk[reply]

  • Be consistent in using US vs UK English
    • I'm not a guy who can tell British/American English apart from each other, so I'll ask someone else to do it. Buggie111 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "complement" in this context?
    Her crew size.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 19:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ship's primary armament consisted of four 30.5 cm (12 in) 45-caliber guns... Eight 24 cm (9.4 in) guns...twenty 10 cm (3.9 in) L/50 guns...and four 37 mm (1.5 in) L/44 guns" - why the single mm measurement among the centimeters?
    Fixed.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 19:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radetzky class or Radetzky-class?
  • "At only 14,508 long tons (14,741 t) displacement, the Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand, like the other ships of the Radetzky-class was smaller" - could remove everything before the comma, as it repeats information given in the previous sentence. Also, need comma before "was"
    • What should be deleted, the tonnage or the statement the "Erzherzog Franz Ferdinnand"?Buggie111 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 19:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Austro-Hungarian navy was not satisfied with the operation; as the ships lacked cranes with which to lift the planes onto the decks, which were too small to accommodate the planes" - grammar
  • "Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand and the rest of the fleet departed to bombard the Italian coast.[17] Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand and the remainder of the Austro-Hungarian fleet bombarded the important naval base" - repetitive
  • "Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand bombarded the main coasal batteries in both Ancona and Montenegro" - repeats previous sentence, and "coastal"?
    • There was more than just gun turrets at Ancona. Several BB's bombarded barrackses, munition depots, and one even attacked the post office. I'll try and incorperate that into it Buggie111 (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent date formatting in both article text and notes
  • Austro-Hungarian navy or Navy?
  • Navy, fixed as well.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 19:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in page formatting: for example, ref 12 vs ref 14
  • Ref 21: retrieval date?
    • I'm assuming you mean the one about the loss of a destroyer? Done. Buggie111 (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how/whether states are abbreviated in publisher locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1a

  • References and accuracy not checked
  • Three minor typo fixes done, please check.
  • "casemated single mounts" -> "single mount casemates"? 'Casemated' is unusual usage.
  • "The Austro-Hungarian navy was not satisfied with the operation; as the ships lacked cranes with which to lift the planes onto the decks, which were too small to accommodate the planes." Clumsy, rewrite.
  • Spelling is American, primarily in "mobilization" and its variants. It may be worth noting this on the talk page to prevent future edit skirmishes. I see no inconsistency in usage.
  • A note on how her speed and range compared with contemporary battleships would be nice.
  • Overall, a concise and enjoyable article that appears to cover all significant aspects. Doug (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • General
  • Lead
    • Identify that the original name is in German. Should the English translation also be italicised?
    • As she and the rest of the Radetzky class were built after HMS Dreadnought was launched in 1906, it seems misleading to call her a pre-dreadnought. The Radetzky class article describes the class as semi-dreadnoughts. Perhaps describe her as a pre-dreadnought design.
    • If she was the first ship of her class to be built why was she not the "name ship" of the class.
      • Many ships in different classes did not have the name ship built first. The Tegetthoff-class is a good example.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 19:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. In many cases, the ship that was planned to be the first of the class and the ship that ends up being the first are different, simply because of obvious logistical issues and the difficulty of translating designs and plans into concrete action. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Service history
    • Given the shortness of her operational career, I think the bits that are covered could be expanded. For example:
      • What type of seaplanes were used? If the ships had no cranes and the decks were too small, in what way were the seaplanes operated from the ships?
      • The wording of the first few sentences of the World War I section needs a bit of clarification. At the moment it could be read that the fleet was mobilised in anticipation of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Putting dates in for the assassination and the mobilisation would get the chronology clear for those who are not familiar with the causes of World War I.
      • May 1915
        • How long were they at sea in May 1915?
          • Just that day. I don't have a source that says exactly how many hours they were at sea.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 20:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • But the article currently reads as if they were still at sea on 30 May when the destroyer was sunk. If they were back in harbour and it was seven days later, this is really a different event.--DavidCane (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What damage was done in Ancona and on the coast of Montenegro?
          • Addressed. There was not much damage done to Montenegro though. Sokol does not even mention any damage, just that it was bombarded.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why bombard Montenegro? Note: the Radetzky class article seems to suggest that this happened earlier, in October 1914, and that it was by Radetzy alone. Suggest you link directly to the Kingdom of Montenegro section of the Montenegro article.
        • Were any Italian ships sunk or damaged?
        • Were the coastal batteries put out of action?
        • Were there combatant and/or non-combatant casualties on land?
        • Where had the Italian ships been and where is "on the scene"?
          • The majoirty of the Italian navy would have been in Taranto and Brindisi and "the scene" would have been the location of the Austrian attacks, this case, Ancona.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sinking of a destroyer in a collision is a bit more than "damage". What was the name of the destroyer and where did it sink?
          • She sunk in Pola but her name is not known.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've done a bit of my own research and the only Austrian destroyers that appear to have been lost during the war seem to have been SMS Lika, SMS Triglav (both struck mines in 1915), SMS Wildfang (sunk in 1917) and SMS Streiter (sunk in 1918). Was the ship perhaps refloated?
              • Perhaps. Sokol's book does not mention the ship at all either....--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Perhaps the newspaper report's use of "destroyer" is incorrect and it was a smaller ship. A note might be useful indicating that while it was reported in the NY Times, other records do not support the report. --DavidCane (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Was the action tactically or strategically valuable, given that a ship was lost?
        • Did the action prevent or discourage Italian operations?
      • Confined to Port
        • Was the confinement to port only because of Admiral Haus's orders or was Pola also blockaded by allied navies?
          • Pola itself was not blockaded but the Adriatic was. Haus believed that his ships were needed in port rather than out at sea to counter any possible attack from the Italians. Even if he let the ships out, the EFF would not have been the first to go as coal was scarce and it was reserved for the newer ships of the Tegetthoff class.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 22:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You might want to link to Fleet in being with regard to the strategy of keeping the ships in port.
        • There is no mention of her leaving port in November 1918 and the surrender to the US Navy mentioned in the Radetzy class article.
          • The article says that the other two ships surrendered to the Americans. EFF never sailed out of Pola to surrender to an American fleet. She remained.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Post War - question asked at the first FAC but not addressed
        • What was the ship doing between the transfer to Italy and the scrapping in 1926?
        • Was she incorporated into the Italian navy or just left in dock awaiting destruction (the infobox states decommissioned in 1926, which suggests that she was commissioned into the Italian navy)?
            • By decommissioned, that means that the ship was removed from AH service and handed over to Italy. See my comment below, she was simply in Italian hands for those years. Technically, commissioned in a sense but only rotting away in a dock somewhere.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Was she renamed to something Italian?
          • No, I've seen no evidence to suggest that the Italians changed the names of any of the ships that they were given after the war. They were not even allowed to keep them after the Washington naval treaty so they simply scrapped them. It's not like EFF did anything under Italian ownership....--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where was she scrapped?

--DavidCane (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Link to sister ship
  • What kind of seaplanes were used in 1912?
  • This is awkward and kind of redundant. On 23 May 1915, four hours after the Italian declaration of war reached the main Austro-Hungarian naval base at Pola, Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand and the rest of the fleet departed to bombard the Italian coast,[17] namely the important naval base at Ancona,[18] and later the coast of Montenegro, without opposition. Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand bombarded the main coastal batteries in both Ancona and Montenegro--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review concern for File:Erz ff colorcard.jpg: Why are we directed to Larry Nielsen's web page where there are no signs of battleship postcards? Furthermore, what states this postcard to be a US published work; i.e. first published in US? Alexander Kircher is German,[3] making it more likely his work would more likely to be first on a German postcard (if printed as such) unless a source states otherwise. As he died in 1939, his copyright lasts till the start of this year (2010); URAA restoration applies to his works that were first published outside of the US before 1977. Other Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the painting for now.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Needs some polish. Specific suggestions: Sasata (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "30.5 cm (12 in) guns", "eight 24 cm (9.4 in) guns" shouldn't those be hyphenated?
  • why was she launched before completion? Is this normal practice?
  • "…and she was commissioned into the fleet on 5 June 1910." what fleet?
  • "and not as well armed" well-armed
  • link torpedo tube
  • "After returning to Pola" why is this spelled differently than Wiki article spelled Pula (to which it's linked)?
    • The Name is used interchangeably. Since the Austrians named it Pola, most AH BB articles (and their sources) call it Pola as well.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 14:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the Austro-Hungarian Navy was not satisfied with the operation; as the ships lacked cranes with which to lift the planes on to the decks, which were too small to accommodate the planes." should not be linked with a semicolon
  • Was the ship designed to be used with seaplanes? Why didn't they figure out beforehand that they would need a crane to lift them?
    • I doubt that they knew that seaplanes would be used on her. The first flight had taken place only a few years before and no one really saw any military usefulness for these small planes for many years. Hence the lack of preparation for this idea.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 22:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Teodo
  • "…Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand was mobilized in late July 1914 to support the flight of SMS Goeben and Breslau." Do ships "fly"? Is this standard lingo?
    • That's just the name of the journey of these two German ships. It's also known as the "pursuit" of SMS Goeben and Breslau.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 14:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's a specific military operation known by this name, shouldn't it be capitalized then? Sasata (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Ancona
  • "members of the Entente" link?
  • "during the first half of 1915." easter-egg link
  • "... while an Italian destroyer, Turbine was severely damaged" needs comma after Turbine
  • "the infrastructure of the port an Ancona" fix
  • "In total 63 Italians, both civilians and Military personnel" comma after total; why is Military capitalized?
  • "Italian Army from being able to deploy it's forces" surprised no-one caught this yet
  • "This delay gave Austria-Hungary valuable time in strengthening her Italian border and re-deploying some of her troops from the Eastern and Balkan fronts." -> to strengthen; re-deploy; are nations typically referred to in the feminine?
  • "remainder of the war saw" does a war "see"?
  • "pp. 107-108" endash, not hyphen
  • "Annapolis, MD" versus "Westport, Conn" pick a US state abbreviation style
  • why is the name of the third sister ship not mentioned (Zrinyi) in the article text?
  • no mention (aside from the infobox) of when the ship was laid down
  • The lead sentence has three consecutive wiklinks; more than one is to be avoided
  • Is there some missing history here? According to the "The naval policy of Austra-Hungary, 1867-1918", p. 249, Haus sent a fleet on August 7 that included this battleship, in response to a call for help from Wilhelm Souchon
  • it's not really high quality, but there's a drawing of the ship in a 1909 Popular Mechanics mag here, which I assume is out of copyright. Not sure if it's preferable to the sister ship picture currently in the inbox, just another option to consider. There's also some postcards (see here) that have pictures; have you checked the copyright status of these images?
    • The first link has photo's that are simply too bad of quality to go on an FA IMHO. The other one looks promising but I need an author, date and PD verification....--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 03:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • wondering if there should be some kind of dab to distinguish between this article and the similar sounding SMS Erzherzog Ferdinand Max
  • I checked several of the sources that were available on Google Books and didn't see any problems. Sasata (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks so much, Sasata. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support. *her two sisters' - reads a little oddly, should probably be "two sister-ships".

  • Serbian reinforcements from supporting the siege at Scutari - this is abrupt, as we know nothing about the seige at Scutari; a sentence on the topic would be helpful (e.g. who was besieging whom, and why).
  • By 1913, the four new dreadnoughts of the Tegetthoff class - the Tegetthoff class—the only dreadnoughts built for the fleet— - the explanation of what the Tegetthoff class is should come where it's first mentioned, and only the first mention should be linked.
  • deploy it's forces - no apostrophe in "its" there
  • the Alps - should probably be linked, not everyone knows what they are.
  • Austria-Hungary valuable time to strengthen her Italian border - should probably be "its border", not "her border".
  • The only damage in the ensuing days - the only damage to the Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand, I presume? This should be clarified.
    • K.
  • while attempting to avoid an aerial bombardment - while who was attempting to avoid an aerial bombardment? The Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand? The other ship? Both?
    • I will get at it.

In general, a well-written article. I'd like to see some information on the ship's cost; is there any available? Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really. I'd have to learn Hungarian. I'm sorry if no one has gotten around, but both WS and I are busy with RL. This will take a few days. Buggie111 (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. I'd use the standard wikimarkup for things like italics, rather than html code like <i>. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after copy-editing the article. Brief and terse, yet informative. I left an inline query about "husbanding" ships. I'm also not sure about personifying the ship as a "she"—I know this is common in ship circuits, but didn't we used to discourage such tone? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 04:13, 19 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SMS_Erzherzog_Franz_Ferdinand/archive2&oldid=1136095663"