Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Austria-Hungary/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 03:07, 11 July 2010 [1].

List of battleships of Austria-Hungary

[edit]

List of battleships of Austria-Hungary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): White Shadows stood on the edge 17:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have already taken it through an ACR though Wikiproject MILHIST and it was promoted. As a result I feel that it meets all of the criteria for a FL and any comments would be welcome. Thanks, White Shadows stood on the edge 17:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Look, haveing read through it on GB, I found no information in it that was not cited by the other refrences that I've included. Must I really over ref sentences?--White Shadows stood on the edge 19:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And just to let you know, there is no way that I'm going to purchase a $130 book that re-states everything that is in this list and is well cited.--White Shadows stood on the edge 19:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't control, nor would I want to, your actions. But I have a real problem believing that you read through Sokol when the link that you sent me contained no more than the few lines usually accessible through snippet views. You also failed to look through René Greger's Austro-Hungarian Warships of World War I, but have relied on third-tier sources like Conway's, etc. There's usually not a whole lot of detail available when the history of an entire class of warship is summarized in a page or less, which is the case for most all of your sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like many libraries have it[2]; could you try inter-library loan? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not anytime soon. And the closest copy is 119 miles away....--White Shadows There goes another day 21:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You never know what ILL can get you. I've gotten books from that far away in a reasonable amount of time. Also, you might consider looking a little more thoroughly for used copies; just looking at Amazon there's one available for US$59. Parsecboy (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. If only I had a few more dollars....--White Shadows There goes another day 15:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. I ment skimmed through it with that little snippet view. If you'd like I can try to add it in with just that little snippet view as my "window into the book". I've also (I think) fixed that little inconsistency.--White Shadows There goes another day 02:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I've fixed the inconsistency issue. Strumvogel, do you happen to know the ISBN number of the book? I think I've got a plan....--White Shadows There goes another day 17:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still have a problem with a comma after the author(s). Some cites have one, some don't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can a fresh set of eyes point one out to me? I don't really see any example of this...--White Shadows There goes another day 22:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Gardiner, Chesneau, and Kolesnik, p. 272" vs "Gardiner and Grey p. 333". Also, Halpern or Haplern? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the Gardiner, Chesneau, and Kolesnik one supposed to use commas while the Gardiner and Grey one should not since there are only two authors. As for the Halpern or Haplern issue, it's Halpern and I have fixed that.--White Shadows There goes another day 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first comma is necessary, the second you could take or leave (see serial comma if you're interested), but the third one is the inconsistency that Sturmvogel points out: why is there a comma between the authors and the page number(s) in one citation, but not in the next? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've removed the third comma. Thanks for pointing that out to me.--White Shadows There goes another day 23:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just placed an order for the $59 version of Sokol's book. I'll get it between July 14 adn July 29 though I'm heading to Canada in a few weeks.--White Shadows There goes another day 00:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the FLC backlog and that this FLC would have to remain open until the book arrives, would it be a good idea to withdraw and re-submit when the article has been updated with the information in the book? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why? There could be more comments and it's just a week or so until I get the book? If the backlog is that bad then I guess that I can withdraw it but I think that it'd be a waste of time to simply withdraw, add in the book and then resubmit.--White Shadows I ran away from you 02:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I can't promote this until this issue is resolved, and it's unfair to other nominators to keep this open indefinitely when reviewer resources are stretched thin. I notice that the same issue was brought up at the A-Class review; you said you would get another user to add information from the book, but it doesn't seem like that has happened yet. These are issues best resolved outside FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 11 July 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_list_candidates/List_of_battleships_of_Austria-Hungary/archive1&oldid=1136093880"