Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Árpád

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  • Withdrawn at nominator's request -MBK004 06:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]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 Árpád

Nominator(s): White Shadows
Toolbox
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • External links

I'm nominateing this article for an A-class review because I belive that it meets all of the requirements. It's a fairly nice article and well sourced but it is small. There is not that much info for the Habsburg class battleships. Like the other ships in the AH navy, they just sat in Pola or Trieste for all of WWI exept the bombardment of Ancona. Any comments are welcome :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • There are books listed that are not used in the article. Why? --Brad (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I've fixed it by removeing the non used books.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - same reasoning as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Habsburg. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • no dab links, no external links (so there are none that can be broken) (no action required);
    • one image has alt text and the other doesn't. 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? For instance, you could say the bit about the bombardment of Ancona and then add "but was decommissioned afterwards and used as harbor defense ship..." etc.;
    • in regards to her decommissioning, could you clarify why Arpad was decommissioned in the World War I section?
      • It was because of a coal shortage in Austria-hungary that she remained moored in Pola for the entire war following the bombardment of Ancona. I've added that in.--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the World War I section you have "Austro-Hungarian Navy" but elsewhere you have "Austro-Hungarian navy" (difference in capitalisation of navy), e.g. first paragraph of the Construction and layout section;
    • in the World War I section, could you provide a date when the ship took part in the bombardment of Ancona?
    • in relation to Footnotes 5 & 6 you have "Larry Phelps", but in the References section you have "Harry Phelps" - can you please determine which is correct and rectify?
    • Is it possible to provide some dates that the ship was involved in supporting the flight of Goeben and Breslau. "The early period of World War I" is a bit unclear;
    • in the References section two of the ISBNs have hyphens, the others don't;
    • in the Footnotes section Footnote # 1 uses "and" and # 2 uses "&" - it should be consistent;
    • also in the Footnotes section Footnote # 1 has a year, but none of the others have them. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: All my concerns have been addressed. I'm fairly happy to support but would like to see if those who know more about ships content believe it to be complete. Brad and Ed, do your opposes still stand or have your concerns been addressed? — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If needed. I can give the exact targets that Arpad bombarded in the attackon Ancona but other than that. I've pulled out all the stops. The ship did nothing other than the bombardment of Ancona and the flight of Goeben and Breslau. I do hope that there is anough coverage to let you support but if not, I'm afraid that I may not have any more info to give you all.--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; my reasoning is in the A-class review for SMS Habsburg. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 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) 07:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although I found additional material on Arpad and Habsburg in some (in German) books, these are not required for the English language wiki, as I understand it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:18, 21 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 :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 16:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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_Árpád&oldid=1136064614"