Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand

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.

SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand[edit]

Promoted, Woody (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk), Parsecboy (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets all of the criteria. It's amply referenced, covers all of the main points and most details, and is gramatically correct with pictures to break up text flow. I'm going to put this through FAC soon, if time permits. I'll inform Parsec Buggie111 (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query, is Parsec a co-nom due to the edit count? If so he should add his name above. -MBK004 01:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked him on his talk, as I don't want to be "forging" sigs. Buggie111 (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'll add myself as a co-nom. Thanks for letting me know. Parsecboy (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, as to the article itself, it is rather short (13kb or so in length), but it's about as comprehensive as it can get. The ship (and the Austria navy as a whole) didn't see much action during the war, so there isn't a ton to say about the service history. Parsecboy (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Ah, nicely done: "SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand (German: "His Majesty's ship Archduke Franz Ferdinand") was ..."; I should have thought of that when reviewing the other SMS articles. It makes sense to translate Erzherzog, so why not throw in SMS while you're at it? That's more compact than making a separate note for SMS. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do you suggest putting that?Buggie111 (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You already did that; I'm saying that's a great choice that I hadn't thought of in previous articles. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with "Work on the ship had been delayed by two strikes in 1908 and 1909, by welders and riveters, respectively." But if you want my advice on tone, "respectively" sounds a little old-fashioned, unless you really need it. This would work: "Work on the ship had been delayed by a welders' strike in 1908 and a riveters' strike in 1909." - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More free advice, it's your lucky day: nothing wrong with "A month and a half after her launch, on October 22, ...", but when you do the same thing two more times in the same paragraph (telling us how many months it is from one date to another), that's a bit much. We're not aiming the articles at readers who have to be reminded that October comes after September. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I again concur. Buggie111 (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You probably know better than I do, but doesn't "casemated single mounts" sound better than "casemate single mounts"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it's not covered by WP:MILMOS or WP:MOSSHIP, every Wikipedia article I've seen on ships has followed the day-month format. I notice dates are being changed during this review to month-day; is everyone okay with that? - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer day-month, but the majority of the article was month-day, so I changed it to conform. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's an open question how far we want to extend the metaphor that a ship is a "she". I don't have any objection to using "whose", since "the X of which" can sound stilted, but I'd prefer "which" to "who" in "two German ships stationed in the Mediterranean who were attempting to break out ..." - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per usual disclaimer, and I made the changes mentioned above, along with my usual copyediting. I think you're going to get opposition over the month/day format, and even though I understand why the article is shorter than some A-class articles, there's a chance you'll get opposition on that basis. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support Would it not be better to have the painting of the actual ship in the infobox, rather than an image of the sister ship? I appreciate they were near identical, but it just seems a bit.... odd. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, my view is the picture is preferable for the infobox image because the painting is pretty fuzzy and hard to make out. The picture gives a much better idea of what the ship looked like. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some further points:
    • There are a few niggles with prose relating to how the ship is addressed. For instance the term "the ship" is used five times in just seven sentences in the lead. Later on it is a little overused again, and then the ship is referred to twice by name in two sentences at the start of the Service History.
      • Will try to standardize.
    • The link to Franz Ferdinand at the start of WW1 is good, but I feel the namesake should have been mentioned earlier in the prose (although its worth keeping the relationship at the start of the WW1 section).
    • "The first seaplanes to be used in combat..." Is this the first ever recorded use? This is quite an interesting fact that would benefit from a bit more detail.
Other than that, it looks good! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've switched to support. A few things though - the infobox and prose aren't consistent about the date of launch. I'll assume the prose is correct as its referenced and agrees with my copy of Jane's fighting ships of WWI. With regard to the image, I thought that might be the case. I don't really fully agree with having an image of a different ship in the lead when another is available, but it isn't a deal breaker. That said though I think it would be an issue if you decide to go to FAC (there is an image in my copy of Janes, but it isn't very good). Buggie, I'm afraid the google books link isn't loading for me, but I can guess its good stuff! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case it helps, there are a few images of the ship on the net that must be public domain I'd have thought. I bow to anyone else who knows about copyright etc... though. Here and here. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on when the photos were published and/or who took them and when they died. Since we don't have any of that information yet, we can't prove they're in the public domain. Parsecboy (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected as much (wasn't sure about the Flickr one though. Best of luck, it's nice to see a short article meet A class. Gives me hope! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
THere's some images of Erzherzog herself on the other wiki languages, but they don't come through when I paste them in . Buggie111 (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because they're on those wikis rather than wikicommons. They look inviting though, but I'll leave it for someone else to decide if they're ok to use. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • no dab links, ext links all work, all images have alt text (no action required);
    • Are you able to add a date of death for the author to File:Erz ff colorcard.jpg? The licence states "life of the author plus 70 years", but doesn't state specifically when the author died so people can confirm the 70 years have passed. I'd suggest that if you know his date of death that you should include this in bracket beside his name to remove any ambiguity;
      • He died in 1939. I've added that to the image page. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, now that I think about it, according to the URAA, the image may not be PD in the US, which is a problem. It's unquestionably PD in Europe, but we need to know the publication date for the card. The issue is, according to the URAA, any work that was not PD on 1 January 1996 had its copyright extended, based on the year of publication. If it was before 1923, it's still PD, but if it was 1923-78, it's 95 years from the date of publication. After 1978 the copyright reverts to 70 years after the death of the author. So we need to make sure it was published before 1923 for us to be able to use it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which, incidentally, is why we can't use many of Willy Stöwer's excellent paintings... Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The cityofart website states that it was painted in 1908.; sorry for making assumptions, but back then, it was published as soon as it was realeased. Buggie111 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Alright, can we get a direct link to the photo page with the date on it? Right now it's just the generic cityofart link. I'm making a big deal about this because I want to have our bases covered when we go to FAC; image reviews can be a pain in the neck if the copyrights aren't crystal clear. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • there is some variation in the format used for dates in the article. You mostly seem to use "Month Day, Year", but I found a couple that use "Day Month Year", e.g in the Construction section "...later on 15 January 1911, and...on 15 September";
      • Fixed. I suppose that's an effect of two different people writing the article (I generally prefer "day month" myself). Are there any more like that? Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the References section, ref # 4 (Austrian Battleship Ashore) needs an accessedate, also its date format is different to the "Retrieved 8 September 2009" in ref # 14;
    • in the Bibliography section I think that the title of the Vego source isn't capitalised correctly. I think it should be "Austro-Hungarian Naval Policy, 1904–14";
    • in the Bibliography, both the Hore and Ireland sources have hyphens in the ISBN, but the others don't have hyphens, these should probably be consistent. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • The service history is understandably a bit short. Of course as you point out above the ship (and the Austrian navy) didn't see much action during the war which explains this. Again I note that you touch on this in the article but could you possibly expand (ever so slightly) on this? Specifically why did they remain in port after the raid on Ancona? I myself have no knowledge on this aspect of WWI and it may aid other readers also. This isn't a war stopper for me though and if you don't feel this needs to added I have no dramas with that;  Done
      • I should be able to get to this tomorrow sometime. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reworded a couple of sentences so please check my work and change any you don't agree with; and  Done
    • Could 'frogmen' (in last section) be wikilinked? Might be helpful.  Done
  • Suport - Overall this article easily meets the A class criteria IMO. Top work. Anotherclown (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'll support this, however, I have some questions. Sorry to throw in a wrench this late in the game. I have a couple of prose questions... and you know that there will be prose questions at FAC.
"After returning to Pola, the entire fleet was mobilized for possible hostilities" What does this mean? There was an imminent threat? From whom? and what was it about? (actually, I think I know, but I also think it should be in here).
Frequent incidences of 5 words when one or two would work well. For example: That night, a severe storm caused her to break loose from her moorings. That night, she broke lose from her moorings in a severe storm. OR She broke loose from her moorings that night in a severe storm. She was completed by June 5, 1910, when she was commissioned into the fleet. She was completed by June 5, 1910 and was commissioned into the fleet. Among the ships from other navies were the British pre-dreadnought HMS King Edward VII, the Italian pre-dreadnought Ammiraglio di Saint Bon, the French armoured cruiser Edgar Quinet, and the German light cruiser SMS Breslau. Ships from other navies included the British pre-dreadnought....etc.
that whole paragraph on the sea planes, plus Serbia and Montenegro sentences, is confusing.
The ship was named after Archduke Franz Ferdinand, whose assassination brought on the outbreak of World War I... You could say ... whose assassination triggered WWI....
when the war started, the ship was mobilized? What does that mean? Taken out of mothballs? staffed and crewed? Prepared for combat?
At 20:00 on May 23, 1915, four hours of the Italian declaration of war reached Pola, Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand, her sister ships, and the rest of the fleet departed Pola to bombard the Italian coast.... First, shouldn't read "after" instead of "of"? Second, why is Pola linked on the third mention, instead of first ( a few paragraphs earlier)? At 20:00 on 23 May 1915, four hours after the Italian declaration of war reached them, the fleet left Pola to bombard the Italian coast.
It sounds awkward to refer to EFF, her sister ships, and the rest of the fleet. Can we say the Fleet?
How big was the fleet? (did I miss that?) Most readers don't know diddly about an Austrian navy, other than what they heard in the Sound of Music. So my guess would be that there needs to be some minor background. Just a thought.Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tackle those. What did SOM say? Buggie111 (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Parsec has fixed them. Buggie111 (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is SOM? Still don't know much about the fleet, generally. And there doesn't seem to be an article on it. This article disagrees with Habsburg article...Admiral wants to husband his fleet so he uses mines etc (in this article). In Habsburg article, there is a shortage of coal. Is it both? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's both. And SOM is Sounnd of Music. I thought it was a weird comment. Buggie111 (talk) 00:50, 14 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_Erzherzog_Franz_Ferdinand&oldid=362197872"