Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ersatz Monarch-class battleship

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.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Ersatz Monarch-class battleship[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): White Shadows (talk)

Ersatz Monarch-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I'm finally starting to get back into the swing of things after taking several years off Wikipedia. My first solo project after returning is this article, the only class of Austro-Hungarian battleships designed to operate on the high seas, which were unfortunately never built because of World War I. My personal library has grown over the years and this allowed me to finally flesh out this article to the fullest. Thanks to everyone who reviews this article as I work to take it to FAC!--White Shadows New and improved! 02:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some of the entries in your Citations are not in your References. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch! That has been fixed.--White Shadows New and improved!

Abstain, soft decline (not willing to re-review, see below). Review limited to A1 (quality, reliability, occasionally ) / A2 (scholarly historiography)

  • It is my current habit to abstain or decline on reviews as my review for quality emphasises scholarly history (HQRS / historiography) and while my comments are actionable they may unintentionally exceed the criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was trying to note I may be overly hash on sourcing. The Abstain is not meant to halt the progress of this article to a-class. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A2 not actionable: was there any interesting historiographical issues raised in the sources you read of WEIGHT to justify a discussion or section on this? Given Gebhard and Sondhaus (including not yet cited) there may infact be a historiographical review element in the published sources of WEIGHT to include?
This is a request that if you read anything of historiographical interest, to include it. Trying to note that it is a potential expansion Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Political-economic / Economic history: "Different figures have been offered…" in which year? It matters. You may be surprised by the amount of Original Research around people computing prior year to current year values in different forms of worth. (I explictly suggest you DO NOT compute such, my belief is it comprises original research as repeatedly stated at FAC years ago now).
  • "Fitzsimons, Bernard (1978). The Illustrated encyclopedia of 20th century weapons and warfare, Volume 18. Columbia House." volume isn't part of the title. Etc., for similar. TERTIARY check clean.
    Fitzsimons opcit, both in bibliography and foots, spell out the author of the article used and the article title! Both in 8 and 18. The actual work cited is Author "article" (date) in Fitzsimons…. If it is unsigned doubly consider if it meets TERTIARY expertise. Note: consider
  • Potential un-/under-used source Gebhard, Louis [<1968] "The Development of the Austro-Hungarian Navy 1897–1914: A Study in the Operation of Dualism (1965)." PhD thesis
  • "Gill C.C[sic]" If we can't get his initials right, how do we know he's cited?
  • Good variety in citations based off citation through article (indicative against bad research of scope)
I may have obscured this. This is meant as great praise. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the outbreak of World War I a " missing subclause comma
  • "when the war expected to be over." missing verb "was"
  • Review halted, restricted to sources.
  • Review halted due to fundamental english second language issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This disparity illustrated that while the Austro-Hungarian Navy was approaching its goals on paper, a modernization of the fleet's battleships were necessary." 'Modernisation of the fleet's battleships' is singular, not plural. While the quality reviewed so far is high in sourcing, the language quality does not appear to me to be adequate to EFL standards in any of the primary English sub-types Fifelfoo (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will be apologising in depth when able to. Also the article's getting a free detailed language copy edit. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit I follow very little of what you are saying here.
  • "It is my current habit to abstain or decline on reviews as my review for quality emphasises scholarly history" What?
  • "while my comments are actionable they may unintentionally exceed the criteria" Similarly confused here.
  • Not following what you're referring to regarding "A2". If you're referring to a lack of original sources in the article, I have to point out that there are several primary sources that are used in the article. That said however, I wasn't aware lacking original sources was a factor necessary for an ACR.
  • Volume 8 and Volume 18 issues have been fixed. Good catch.
  • There is admittedly not a lot of resources that exist on the subject because we're talking about a series of battleships that never got off the drawing board. STT hadn't even laid down the keel of a single ship before Franz Ferdinand's assassination, and the ensuing July Crisis and Austria-Hungary's declaration of war on Serbia resulted in the battleships never being built.
  • The missing period in "C.C" was just a simple typo which has been fixed. I think that's a huge stretch, the conclusion you are drawing from that. If you're not confident he's being properly cited, the link to the work itself is on google books, and the entire file can be downloaded directly to one's laptop as it is now in the public domain.
  • "Good variety in citations based off citation through article"" What?
  • Fixed the comma and missing verb issue.
  • "Review halted, restricted to sources" What?
  • "Review halted due to fundamental english second language issues." Not sure what this is supposed to mean. If you're implying English isn't my primary language, I have to say that it most definitely is. I've got to say, some of the stuff you just wrote near the end there is borderline insulting...a handful of typos which are in some cases extremely minor and in other cases the sort which would be quite easy to make for almost anyone on this site are not indicative of the sort of conclusions you are drawing here. The use of the word "modernization" in a singular rather than plural context suddenly makes the entire article sub-par by ACR standards?
  • The fact that you aren't even willing to re-review is even more insulting. You may as well have left no comments altogether. An ACR isn't the place to belittle other editors and then state immediately that you aren't interested in any revision to issues that you brought up. That's not how this works.

--White Shadows New and improved!

  • It's very late here but I'm starting to think there was some communication breakdown between us, which let me to interpreting your comments extremely negatively. I apologize for that and appreciate the help you have offered regarding copy-editing.--White Shadows New and improved!

Support Comments/suggestions: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Monarch class coastal defense ship Wien": should have a hyphen, e,g "Monarch-class"
  • same as above for "The Tegetthoff class battleship Viribus Unitis"
  • the table in the Ships section needs citations
  • Tegetthoff-class battleship is overlinked in the Construction and cancellation section
  • in the References, the two Fitzimons works should use title case capitalisation
  • in the References, are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers that could be added for the Fitzsimons works?
  • per WP:LAYOUT the See also section should be above your Notes section
  • there appears to be a mix of English variation. For instance, "defense" (US) but "metres" (British) - either is fine, but the article should be consistent
  • in the Armament section: "10 35 cm, 14 15.24 cm (6.00 in) guns, 20 8.9 cm (4 in)" --> "ten 35 cm, fourteen etc..."
  • same as above for other instances where there are two sets of figures next to each other
  • "By July 1914, Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino had already begun acquiring the raw materials and equipment necessary to lay down "Battleship VIII",[38] but after the July Crisis and Austria-Hungary's subsequent declaration of war on Serbia a month later which marked the beginning of World War I, construction for the battleship was pushed back to September at the end of July". Suggest removing "at the end of July" here
  • "The rest of the completed main guns were later taken by the French as a war prize" --> "The rest of the completed main guns were later taken by the French as war prizes"
Thank you for the suggestions. I’ll be sure to make these changes as soon as I can.—White Shadows New and improved! 14:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed all of these points.--White Shadows New and improved! 01:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've made a few more tweaks. Please check you are happy with them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

  • the info in the lead about the delays and cancellation needs correcting. Based on the material in the body, it appears that construction was halted in July 1914, the contracts were suspended in August 1914, there was an unsuccessful Hungarian attempt to cancel the class in October 1914, and then in February 1915 a compromise was reached to suspend the project and halt construction until the end of the war, with eventual cancellation in late 1917. The lead should reflect this sequence. As present it says that construction was postponed until September 1914 when the war was expected to be over (although the latter isn't supported by the body), that there was delays in October (not in the body), and says that Austria-Hungary expected to win the war by February 1915 (not supported by the body)
  • Construction on the first battleship was to begin 1 July. This was delayed or halted by the political chaos that ensued following the Archduke's assassination on 28 June. Austria-Hungary was deeply involved in the July Crisis, which led to the keel not being laid down on the intended date. Following the outbreak of war, construction was formally pushed back to September as Austria-Hungary didn't expect a world war to unravel, and they also anticipated a quick decisive victory over Serbia in a matter of weeks. In October, the Hungarians attempted to outright cancel the plans, but Haus fought them on that all the way until February 1915 when it was agreed to delay construction indefinitely until the war was won. The plans were eventually canceled in 1917 as the war continued to drag on. Plans still were developed for a new class of dreadnoughts and even super-dreadnoughts all the way up to nearly the end of the war, but these were just plans and they had no formal approval by the Delegations. I may one day create an article centered upon those plans, but that's neither here nor there.
  • This hasn't been addressed. The lead doesn't reflect what is in the body.
  • I've reworked the lead to address this. If there are still issues regarding this point I'll have to ask for further clarification.
  • the lead says they would have been the first class of ocean-going battleships in the Austro-Hungarian Navy. This is clearly incorrect, as the Tegetthoff-class had already entered service, and A-H had already had several classes of ocean-going battleships before them. I would have thought this would have been a description of the Habsburg class, not this one. Or are we talking about the first class of superdreadnoughts?
  • They were indeed the first truly ocean-going battleships that would have been built for the Navy. By "ocean-going" I of course mean the sort of battleships that could engage in offensive operations as far out as the Atlantic. Of course the Tegetthoffs could operate in the Adriatic and even the Mediterranean, but they were never intended to operate in the high seas like the German or British battleships. That's why the forecastle of the Ersatz Monarchs were designed to be raised rather than the flush decks present on the Tegetthoffs. The Habsburg class most definitely was not considered an "ocean-going" class of battleships. The Habsburgs would be described as the first pre-dreadnought battleships of the Navy, not the first ocean-going battleships.
  • I suggest modifying this statement to add in why they were the first "ocean-going" ones, ie the better sea-keeping characteristics from the raised forecastle, not present in earlier A-H battleships. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken this advice and added a bit to the lead to mention the raised forecastles which would have given the ships better seaworthiness.
  • Chief-of-staff of a building? Belvedere?
  • The Belvedere was the residence of Franz Ferdinand. The Chief of Staff of the Belvedere was basically the one in charge of the heir's personal household, and Ferdinand's right-hand-man. Bardolff was Ferdinand's subordinate, and the article says that he as acting on Ferdinand's orders when he suggested a second division of dreadnoughts.
  • This is pretty obscure. Why not just say that he was chief of staff to Franz Ferdinand? The link doesn't achieve anything, as we aren't told that the Belvedere was FFs palace, and it isn't even in the brief description you get when you hover over the link. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggested that to Haus"
  • Fixed!
  • "34-centimeter (13 in) 45-caliber guns with three guns each in two superimposed turrets." isn't clear. Do you mean each turret would have three guns and there would be two turrets, superimposed? What about rear turrets? Or is it some other combination?
  • This means the turret structure would be the same as the Tegetthoffs, but with a larger set of guns. I'm not sure how to better describe the layout...in total there would be 12 guns and four turrets. Three guns would be located per turret, and the four turrets both fore and aft would be superimposed on-top of one another. Unlike the Tegetthoffs however, two of the turrets (bow and stern) would only have two guns, while the other two would have three.
  • I've tweaked this a bit and moved all the info on the main guns together. This may not suit, as it isn't clear whether the latter part of the section is all about a change to the armament? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armament issues should be all sorted out now.
  • Is there any sort of monetary conversion available for Kronen?
  • None of the conversions I've seen out there are all that reliable, or rather I haven't seen any sources that I've used when writing this article include any conversions for other denominations.
  • Per MOS:CURRENCY given the Austro-Hungarian krone is a less-familiar and obsolete currency, perhaps provide a conversion of krone into 2015 Euros using this website, which provides sources on which is bases its conversions. This would result in a conversion of 81,600,000 kronen to 310,115,020 Euros, for example. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't recall where now, but a few years ago there was a discussion where the point was made that converting figures like this into modern currencies (and adjusting for inflation, more importantly) is misleading, for reasons I don't really understand. I'll see if I can find it, but my takeaway from the discussion was "don't do it". Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opposed the budget in large numbers" isn't particularly useful, could you just delete the last bit?
  • Fixed!
  • "criticized the budget as fiscally"
  • Fixed!
  • should Ersatz Monarch be in italics? (several examples of this)
  • outside the title of the page and the initial bolded usage of the article title, no. The class' formal name was never going to be "Ersatz Monarch". That's the title historians (and the Austro-Hungarians themselves) used to describe a class of battleships that would have been constructed had WWI not occurred, but they were never actually built because of the war. It was effectively a placeholder name for what would have been a properly named class once the first ship was launched and christened.
  • So this class should probably be treated like the Flower-class corvette, and not italicised at all, including in the article title? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a call I'm comfortable making, because it would set a precedent that would apply to many, many other ship-related articles, including other Austro-Hungarian warship classes such as the Ersatz Zenta-class. Most sources I've seen use the italics, but also stress repeatedly that the italics were simply a placeholder name for the class of ships, which would have been properly named had they been built.
  • I always italicize in cases like this (for instance, most German and Austro-Hungarian warships are ordered as "Ersatz ____"), for a couple of reasons. First, the sources generally do, and second, Ersatz is a foreign loanword that isn't widely used, so it should be italicized per the MOS, and the name of the ship being replaced would normally be italicized per our conventions. Parsecboy (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italicized throughout the article.
  • Pitzinger should just be Pitzinger at second mention
  • Fixed!
  • Vego's claim about the "open ocean" is extraordinary. Does anyone else support this claim? Surely all the previous battleships were designed for the Mediterranean at least?
  • By "open ocean" that means the Atlantic. The Tegetthoffs were designed for the Mediterranean but that's not what Vego means when he says "open ocean".
  • link Horsepower#Shaft horsepower
  • That's part of a conversion table. I can't really link to another article as part of {{convert}}
  • I don't think you need to name Vego's book, just that he's a naval historian
  • Fixed!
  • is that four single-shaft steam turbines, or a single turbine with four shafts?
  • "Four (or 4) shaft steam turbines" is the proper technical term. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships uses the term, as does Vego in his writings. There are four shafts with turbines powering each of the four shafts.
  • I'm not a naval architect myself, but that is indeed my understanding of the ship's propulsion system.
  • Then can I suggest you state that in clear layman's terms, rather than with the technical term currently used, as it is unclear what it means in terms of the number of turbines? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • the infobox says 21 kn, but the text says a range of 21 to 25?
  • Fixed! Needed to add to 25 kn to the infobox. Good catch!
  • what was the final layout of the main battery in terms of turrets? ie twin turrets superimposed forward and aft of the main superstructure, plus a twin turret amidships etc?
  • The final layout was identical to the Tegetthoffs, just larger in size and with two less guns in total.
  • the six inch gun conversion has two unnecessary decimal places
  • I don't think I can help that, that's part of the conversion template itself.
  • the Armament subsection is confusing about the number of 4 in guns and TTs, (says 20 × 4 in in one place and 16 elsewhere, and six TTs and five TTs)
  • This is something I will work on fixing soon. There is admittedly a lot of confusion as multiple respectable sources give conflicting claims...this is no doubt in part because the battleship class went through literally dozens of different designs...even after the war started. Heck, there were designs for battleships being drawn up even after the Ersatz Monarch class was technically canceled in 1917. I need to list what each of the different claims are for the armaments and include notes explaining that different sources cite different numbers. I ask you just give me a bit of time to finish that up as that'll no doubt be the longest thing out of this list to flesh out.
  • Still working on this! I just want to make sure all the major sources have their details covered and I'd rather not have massively long efns that explain different authors give different numbers for different components of the ships' general characteristics.
  • Sorting through all the different sources took a few days, but that should be all addressed now.
  • link belt armor
  • Fixed!
  • there is armament info in the armor section
  • Fixed!
  • the fn need citations
  • I'm having problems linking citations in efns...any guess what's the issue?

That's me done. Nice work on this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of these issues should now be addressed. Please let me know if you have any comments or follow-up questions.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 03:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • The sources are all of high quality and reliable, mostly commonly used sources on A-H naval matters.
  • the United States Naval Institute Proceedings needs an ISSN or OCLC
  • I'm not sure one exists? These were printed 104 years ago.
  • You can find them here.
  • Fitzsimons' books need a location, as does Roberts
  • Roberts has been removed as I don't think Warship 1995 has anything covering the Ersatz Monarch class (I don't have a copy ATM). Regardless, it was not necessary to keep around as a citation when Fitzsimons covered the one piece Roberts was being used to cite quite nicely. I have added a location to Fitzsimons' books.
  • This PhD dissertation [1] p. 108 states that STT got the contract for all four of the class?
  • That may be a mistake. Every source I've seen says the contracts were split between STT and Ganz-Danubius.
  • I'm wondering if this article by Sondhaus might provide further information on the class, or whether it would have been captured in his book?
  • Let me check on that.

Just a few minor points to sort out here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Link class in the lede.
  • Done
  • I cleaned up the infobox (mostly for you as standards have changed since you were last active). A couple of pointers: No need to specify language if you're gonna abbreviate, which is most things in the infobox; no need to specify output for knots and nautical miles as they default to km and miles; convert meters into feet and inches (|ftin), boilers and horsepower go in the Installed power parameter; be sure to link lesser-known measurements like hp, knots, nautical miles, etc.
  • Thank you!
  • Add links to steam turbines, armored belt, barbetters, conning tower, battery, deck; you can use any recent A or FA-class article from me or Parsec to see formatting and the links.
  • Done
  • The construction of the Tegetthoff class battleships Hyphen between Tegetthof and class since they're a compound adjective modifying battleship
  • Done
  • equipped with 35-centimeter (14 in) guns Only need to convert on first use.
  • Removed
  • Link caliber
  • Done
  • lattice towers Cage masts is what they're referring to
  • Done
  • Down to propulsion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • standard weight for the Ersatz Monarch class You mean [[Displacement (ship)|displaced]]
  • Done.
  • That's an awfully broad range of speeds from 31,000 shp. The British King George V class ships of a similar size needed 27,000 for 21 knots. Given the nearly exponential ratio between horsepower and speed, those extra 4,000 wouldn't have gotten more than 22 knots. I'd suggest that you drop any sources that say 25 knots and just leave those that say 21 or 22 knots.
  • Done
  • The quote from Vigo should be moved a sentence earlier to flow better with the sentence covering speed.
  • Done
  • substantially greater reserve stability and a smaller list in heavy seas Link to ship stability and explain what you mean by list, which should also be linked, 'cause I'm not understanding it.
  • Let me know if you like the re-write.
  • to facilitate the size of the main battery Awkward. Try: "to accommodate the greater size and weight of..."
  • Done
  • Link funnel and bridge. Remember these are jargon terms and need to be linked or explained for readers not familiar with the terminology. Which is just about all of them.
  • Funnels and bridge are both linked, as well as a few other terms. If there's anything else you think needs linking, please let me know.
  • Done
  • There are a couple of British spellings in the Armament section.
  • Did you intend to say "Armor"? Because I don't see any spelling issues in the Armament section?
  • Nope. The second para of the armament section is littered with Brit spellings of millimeter. That's because the conversion template defaults to BritEng. You fix that by adding "|sp=us" to the template. If you chose to abbreviate the units by adding "abbr=on" then the difference doesn't show.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be fixed. I've made sure that every instance I can find of a conversion template being used that doesn't have "abbr=on" attached has an "sp=us" attachment.
  • Ok. I think I get what you mean here. Made some edits that should be in-line with this. Please let me know if I've missed something.
  • Explain why the secondary armament differs in the second para from that listed earlier.
  • Done. Please let me know if you'd like to see more.
  • that anti-aircraft guns would also complement the vessels awkward
  • Fixed
  • with twelve of them on mountings What does this mean?
  • Please let me know if you like the clarification.
  • thick in the central citadel, where the most-important parts of the ship would have been located Awkward. The belt armor forms the side of the citadel, so not "in", and explain what's in the citadel better, if you want to do that. I generally don't and just say that it was amidships, linking that term.
  • Done
  • Some of your roundings in the armor section are off and there are missing hyphens. Lemme know if you need me to explain proper hyphen use in these sorts of paragraphs. And remember, once you've converted a term, you needn't do so again.
    • each ship with ten 35.5 cm (14 in) Marinekanone L/45 M. 16 main guns and two 47-millimetre (1.9 in) Škoda SFK L/44 S have already been converted and they should be deleted in these.
    • And 8.9cm shouldn't be rounding to 4 in (102mm). Add a "|1" inside the template to tell it to round to one decimal point, not zero. Same with 310 mm.
  • Any further explanation would be greatly appreciated!
  • Quick question before I made any edits...when you say "you don't need to do so again" regarding converts, do you mean just simply have the language spelled out to say "each ship with ten 35.5 cm Marinekanone L/45 M. 16 main guns" or rather "each ship with 10 Marinekanone L/45 M. 16 main guns"? The point I'm trying to get here is just some clarifications regarding what you mean by asking me to remove conversion templates that are used more than once for the same conversion...I don't know if you want me to just eliminate the conversion itself, or eliminate the references to the measurements altogether.
  • Generally keep the measurement but not the conversion in these cases. However, if you've mentioned the model of gun earlier then the measurement becomes optional.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deck and slopes of each ship Explain
  • Removed "slopes" to eliminate confusion.
  • Explain this armor deck mentioned at the end of the para. Is this something separate than the one mentioned earlier? And what was its purpose?
    • Are there two armored decks? If so then say as much and delete the second-to-last sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually something I myself have been a bit confused over. As I'm not a naval architect, I can only speculate on what the purpose of this system was, and I only have a fuzzy picture of what it even looks like in my mind. That said, I'd rather documented information be in the article than not. If I removed something simply because I don't 100% understand it, I don't feel like that would be fair to the reader...do you or perhaps @Parsecboy: have any thoughts about what this may have been and what its purpose was?
  • The first thing that I'd want to know is how the source references them. From my own knowledge ships of this period often have multiple armored decks, as naval architects generally didn't emphasize protection against plunging shells which is best provided by a single thick armored deck, possibly with much lighter decks above or below to catch splinters or to deform the shell by ripping off its armor piercing cap before it impacted the main armored deck. Regardless, though, you should keep all the references to decks together.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me re-check the source. The book is currently on loan so I'm waiting to take a look at it.
  • Fix the broken link to bow
  • Fixed
  • Link kronen, laid down, launched on first use
  • Done
  • Building times were 36 months just to launch, not finished.
  • Clarified.
  • By July 1914, Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino had already begun acquiring the raw materials and equipment necessary to lay down "Battleship VIII" Of course they had with her scheduled to be laid down on 1 July. The question really is why wasn't she laid down on that date?
  • I've reworded that section a bit to clarify exactly what happened between Franz Ferdinand's assassination and the onset of world war in August.
  • In August 1914, the Austro-Hungarian you already told us the year in the previous para. Don't insult the reader by giving the year so often.
  • My apologies. Fixed.
  • I haven't found anything in my research about what the French did with the guns. I presume they studied them much like they did the guns and turrets of SMS Prinz Eugen after they acquired the battleship after the war, but Wikipedia discourages speculation like that.
  • Thanks for the input Sturm! I've addressed some of these points now, and will get to the rest as soon as possible.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 00:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an update Sturm, I'm still waiting on access to the source in question. Will address that point about the deck armor as soon as I can. Please let me know if there's any other outstanding issues from the points above, or anything else you want to bring up in the meantime.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 14:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So here's what the source has to say. "A horizontal armour deck was carried inwards from the bottom edge of the belt, as far as the last of three vertical bulkheads" I'll be honest...I have no idea what this means.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 01:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Strumvogel 66: so here's what I did, I cut the info because it's extremely confusing, and the language we have at the moment is very close paraphrasing anyway. If there's a way to incorporate this info that isn't going to almost repeat it verbatim, and isn't going to just make the reader confused, I'll happily do so...but at the moment I don't think the way it was incorporated into the article did either of those two things.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 01:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly helpful, so I think that you did the proper thing. Supporting now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

  • Replaced the image. This one should be good now.
  • See below...I think/hope the PD I've put into place will work.
  • Removed. Would love to find a new image for the infobox!
  • I'll be the first to admit that image policy is easily my weakest area of expertise on this site...when you say things like "this image needs a US copyright tag" I have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, I know that sounds bad but there's so many moving parts to Wikipedia that it would be dishonest for me to claim that I have an expert knowledge of every aspect and policy of this site...especially since I've been gone for roughly 6 years. Any help or advice would be appreciated, as would any potential replacement images for the infobox. I'd love to get an image of what the ship would have looked like, or a line drawing of it.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 15:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Images on Commons have to be in the public domain in the country of origin and the United States, since that's where Wikimedia's servers are located. For the Haus photo, we need a source that confirms the date of publication, which will help us determine the copyright status in the US. The other two should be covered by {{PD-US}}. As for the illustration, one possibility would be to move it to en.wiki and use a fair use claim. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the Wien photo came from ONI, it's probably actually {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. As for the NFP image, I don't think Commons uses the US-1923-abroad template, but if they do, then sure, that'd work. Parsecboy (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fantastic. I just got the source in question so I anticipate being able to address this issue within the next 12 hours or so.—White Shadows Let’s Talk 18:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, sorry for the delay, we're good to go on images now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Ersatz_Monarch-class_battleship&oldid=1136064736"