Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Zrínyi

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.

Not promoted by The ed17 03:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC) [1][reply]

SMS Zrínyi

[edit]
Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) White Shadows (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it's of the same quality as it's sistership, SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand. I look forward to reviews. Buggie111 ( talk) 19:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Provisional support Comments:
    • no dabs, ext links work (no action required);
    • one image has alt text but another doesn't. While it is not a requirement, it might be best to make this consistent: [2];
      • Fixed
    • "File:Zrinyi.jpg" - needs description, source, author, date information added to the image description page on Commons;
      • Since Orlovic hasn't been editing for about a month, I'd like your help in finding a replacement picture. I myself can only guess at the necesarry things. I have asked him here. Buggie111 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Images are not really my forte, sorry. My suggestion is to try to get a copy of Janes from the appropriate year and scan an image from there. There might be a copy at a library near you (if you search on Worldcat and put in your post/zip code, it will be able to tell where the nearest copy is. Also, Sturm or Parsecboy might be able to help. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • there is some inconsistency in the presentation of the ship's name, sometimes "Zrinyi" and then sometimes "Zrínyi" - should be consistent;
      • Fixed
    • there is a mixture of US and British English. For instance "caliber" (US) and "armour" (British). I suggest using US English as the ship briefly served in the US Navy
      • Fixed, I think. Check over again just to make sure, please.
    • in the infobox "880-890 officers and men" (this range should probably have an endash);
      • Fixed
    • I'm not sure about using bullet points in the infobox, I seem to remember someone saying something about this in other ACRs - I think it is a Ships style issue. Sturm would probably know something about this;
      • Yup, it was commented on somewhere, can't exactly remember. I know I checked Sevastopol for that, but not this. Fixed.
    • there is inconsistency in the date format that is used, for instance in the infobox "15 November 1908" and then in the lead "November 10, 1918". This should be consistent;
    • in the infobox the size of the ship's crew is provided, but this doesn't seem to be included in the prose of the article. I suggest adding this, probably in the "Construction" section, with a citation;
    • in the lead, this sounds awkward, "named for the Zrinski, a noble Croatian family, subject of the Hungarian Crown" (I suggest rewording);
    • in the lead, "the Adriatic sea" ("sea" should probably be "Sea" as in this case it is a proper noun);
      • Fixed
    • the second paragraph of the lead is quite small and would probably work better if combined with one of the others;
      • Fixed
    • in the Construction section, the main article is listed as: "Main article: Radetzky class battleship" (should this be "Radetsky-class battleship"?)
    • should the "Construction" section be renamed "Construction and design" as it seems to deal with more than just construction?
      • I've renamed it "Design and Construction", as the designing stage was first.
    • in the Construction section, "Radetzky followed eight months earlier" (I don't think that "followed" and "earlier" work well together as followed implies "came after" - consider rewording);
      • Fixed
    • the Construction section does not seem to mention when the ship was laid down, although the date is listed in the infobox and in the lead;
      • Fixed
    • there appears to be some confusion over date of commissioning. In the Construction section: "Zrinyi was completed by 15 July 1911, when she was commissioned into the fleet", but in the infobox: "Commissioned: 22 November 1911";
      • Fixed
        • Can you please check this again? The prose still says "was completed by 15 July 1911, when she was commissioned into the fleet", while the infobox has "Commissioned: 22 November 1911". AustralianRupert (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oops. guess I missed it. Will fix in a second.
    • there is a typo here: "the and Erzherzog Karl- class and finally, the older Habsburg-class";
      • Fixed
    • "Ships from other navies included in the demonstration was the British pre-dreadnought" (should be "in the demonstration were");
      • Fixed
    • "On 23 May 1915, between two and four hours after the Italian declaration of war reached the main Austro-Hungarian naval base at Pola" - do you mean "two and four hours after news of the Italian declaration"?
      • Fixed
    • in the World War I section, "On the shore, the infrastructure of the port of Ancona, as well as the surrounding towns, were severely damaged" (should be "was severley damaged");
      • It talks about the towns in that sentance, so that is why I left it as is.
    • I'm not sure of the spelling here: "Postwar". Shouldn't this be either "Post war" or "Post-war"?
      • Fixed
    • in the Postwar fate section, there is an incorrectly spaced emdash (it shouldn't be spaced per WP:DASH);
      • Fixed
    • "The ship had been boarded with a scratch Yugoslav crew" ("been boarded by" perhaps?);
      • Fixed
    • the abbreviation "USN" should be formally introduced on first mention (the lead), e.g. "United States Navy (USN)";
      • Fixed
    • Footnote 1 might need a citation, while it might be a good idea to give page numbers for the Halpern and Sokol claims to Footnote 2;
    • in the Citations, why is "Hore (Battleships)" different to the others?
      • I've fixed this by removing the title from the short citation as there didn't seem to be any reason to differentiate it given that there is only one Hore book listed in the References section. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation # 16 (Sokol, pp. 107-108) should probably have an endash;
      • Fixed
    • are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers for the Miller and Sokol works?
    • some of the publication locations have states, but others don't - this should be consistent;
    • is there a location for the publisher of the Vego source?
    • the title of the Vego work should be capitalised as such: "Austro-Hungarian Naval Policy, 1904-14". AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but for today and most of tomorrow, I'll be bogged down with finals and a concert, so I'l get to work after that. Buggie111 (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional support on research quality and citation quality pending bibliography fixits Cites are good. Sourcing quality is good. Some fixits in reference. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The discussion above is closed. 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_Zrínyi&oldid=1136064619"