Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ironclad warships 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 promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of ironclad warships of Austria-Hungary

[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Parsecboy, White Shadows

This is a list of the ironclad warships built by the Austrian, and later Austro-Hungarian Empire in the 1860s-1880s. Many of these ships participated in the Battle of Lissa, which was the first engagement between multiple armored warship in history. Others however had largely uninteresting careers as a result of Austrian indifference to naval affairs in the years after Lissa, though some of them remained in service or in possession of the Navy through the end of World War I. After the war ended, the ships were divided up among the Allied powers and mostly scrapped in the years immediately after the war, though one of them survived until the year 1950! The list serves as the capstone for this good topic. Thanks for all who take the time to review the list, as well as Parsec for his amazing work on this project.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 00:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]
  • This list is in great shape. I did a minor c/e, rv if I've changed meaning.
  • perhaps mention the attempted sale to Uruguay under Tegetthoff when it should come up first in this list?
  • Either I'm not following what you're suggesting, or someone has added it in there already because the attempted sale to Uruguay is mentioned in the Tegetthoff section.
  • That should be fixed now.
  • "Foreign Items" and Warship International need locations and publishers.
  • Done
  • toolkit checks are all OK.

Great work on putting this together! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

All sources are of high quality and reliable, although a few are quite old. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  1. barbette ships is a WP:Redlink. I'd suggest linking "barbette ships" or forgoing the link entirely until such an article is created.
    Done
  2. the Austrian fleet that competed against Italy in an ironclad arms race in the 1860s – I don't know that I would use the word "compete" in the context of an arms race. I might phrase it as "the Austrian fleet that was involved in an ironclad arms race with Italy in the 1860s".
    Done
  3. These ships—Lissa, Custoza, Erzherzog Albrecht and the rebuilt ship of the line Kaiser—were central battery ships, which placed an emphasis on end-on fire, a necessity for ramming attacks, since broadside guns could not bear. – This should be rephrased to avoid having so many short clauses separated by commas, and since broadside guns could not bear is a somewhat confusing phrasing (I'd suggest "could not be brought to bear", including the Wiktionary link).
    Done
    Is the new phrasing (central battery ships, which placed an emphasis on end-on fire and ramming attacks, since their broadside guns could not be brought to bear against an enemy warship) really correct? Isn't the point that ramming attacks require end-on fire, since broadside guns point in the wrong direction when ramming? This makes it sound like the inability to use broadside guns left end-on fire and ramming attacks the only viable options. I changed the phrasing to reflect what I think is meant (if I'm wrong, just change it again). TompaDompa (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. supposedly using funds appropriated to rebuild Erzherzog Ferdinand Max to build the new ship. – is this use of "supposedly" correct? Did he supposedly use those funds, or did he actually use those funds? The phrasing used on SMS Kronprinzessin Erzherzogin Stephanie (appropriating funds that had been allocated to modernize the ironclad Erzherzog Ferdinand Max to build an entirely new vessel.) seems to suggest the latter.
    This is a MOS issue that could go either way in my opinion. The funds were supposed to be for rebuilding the ship, which is what was supposedly done...but in reality, a new ship was constructed instead with only a few things taken from the older vessel and incorporated into the new design.
    My point was that "supposedly" seemed to modify the wrong thing – what they actually ended up being used for, rather than what they were intended to be used for. I changed the phrasing. TompaDompa (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. the ships still in the navy's inventory had been reduced to secondary duties – I'd add "such as" and an example or two.
    Done
  6. Kaiser Max, were awarded – the comma should be removed.
    Done
  7. Painting of an Austro-Hungarian squadron in Kiel, Germany, led by Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf – I'd add the year.
    Done
  8. The date the ship was commissioned – it should be clarified that this means the date it entered into active service, as opposed to the date its production was ordered (which is a definition of "commission" I suspect many readers will be more familiar with, and which still makes some sense in context). The reader shouldn't have to click the link to avoid misunderstanding this term.
    I've never seen that phrase (commissioned) be used with respect to naval terminology. Usually the term "ordered" would be used in that case. I've added the words "into the Navy" however to help avoid that problem.
  9. Drache's hull was badly rotted by that time – I'd say "wooden hull" to make it clearer to the reader.
    Done
  10. Illustration of Kaiser Max, c. 1866 should use the {{circa}} template.
    Done
  11. They proved to be a flawed design that were very unstable switches between singular and plural.
    Fixed
  12. owing in large part due to is an anacoluthon. Either "owing" or "due" should be removed.
    Fixed
  13. In unusable condition due to neglect by the early 1870s, the Marinekommandant Friedrich von Pöck was able to secure funding to rebuild the vessels has a dangling modifier; von Pöck was not in unusable condition.
    Fixed
  14. Their increased size should have allowed them – I'd say "would have".
    Done
  15. They spent the rest of the war patrolling the Adriatic – since this is the first mention, Adriatic Sea should be linked.
    Done
  16. By the time Lissa entered service – is this meant to refer to Lissa or Custoza? Either way, I'd add the year.
    It's supposed to be Custoza. Done.
  17. Lissa served in that capacity until 1920 should be "Custoza served [...]", right?
    Good catch. Fixed.
  18. Erzherzog Albrecht was ordered in 1869, at the same time as Custoza; but budgetary limitations forced Romako to produce a slightly smaller, and thus cheaper, design for the second vessel. – semicolons should not be placed before conjunctions in this way, and the high number of commas for the sentence length decreases readability.
    Fixed
  19. being activated only in 1881 to assist in the suppression of a rebellion near Cattaro Bay – if there is an article for the rebellion itself it should be linked.
    Unfortunately there isn't.
    All right. I added a comment saying that the link should be added if and when the article is created. TompaDompa (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  20. the last ship of her type to be engaged in a naval battle in the world – I'd move "in the world" to right after "type".
    Done
  21. secondary battery redirects to Rechargeable battery rather than Battleship secondary armament.
    This made me laugh far harder than I probably should have. Fixed!
  22. In the image of Tegetthoff, the ship kind of blends in with the background as a result of the small image size (with the full-size image, this is not at all a problem). Might it be possible to crop the image (thereby increasing the relative size of the ship), adjust the contrast (or something), or find a different image?
    I've replaced the image
  23. in Genoa Italy seems to be missing a comma.
    Fixed
  24. Already by 1898, the Austro-Hungarian Navy considered the ship to be obsolete. – I'd remove "already" or move it after "Navy".
    Done
  25. For the ships that were first ceded and then broken up, I don't think the "Fate" should be formatted as "Ceded to [country], broken up, [year]". For instance: for Erzherzog Albrecht, Ceded to Italy, broken up, 1950 would be better as "Ceded to Italy, broken up in 1950" or "Ceded to Italy in [year], broken up in 1950".
    Done

TompaDompa (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I went ahead and made a few edits myself, and I now consider this up to WP:Featured list standard. TompaDompa (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_ironclad_warships_of_Austria-Hungary/archive1&oldid=1138486840"