Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/2010/Failed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Information and sources

Failed

[edit]
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.

Mississippi class battleship

[edit]
Nominator(s):Kevin Murraytalk


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it is close to A class and I am eventually hoping it will reach Featured Article class. Any suggestion for improvement welcome. Kevin Murray (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments This article is in good shape, but I think that it needs a bit more work to reach A class
    • The coverage of the ships' careers with the Greek Navy seems inadequate given that Greece ended up operating both ships for most of their service lives. The article's initial sentence that "The Mississippi class battleships, USS Mississippi and USS Idaho, served in the United States Navy from 1908 to 1914." without any acknowledgement of their Greek service needs to be fixed as a priority.
      • I've rewritten the lead to more prominently discuss the Greek period and removed some other detail.--Kevin Murray (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added some interesting background material to put the specific facts on the ships into a historical context. One of the sources that I was reading today discusses the lack of information about the early 20th century Greek Navy; explaining that during the WWII German occupation much information was destroyed. There is more information at the individual articles for the ships, but these are weak in WP:V. There are several potentially strong resources with limited online viewing. It looks like these might yield some more good detail to round out the sections (unfortunately these are pricey to buy). I also have a reprint of an early 20th century Janes FS on order which might have some further details. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The paragraph which begins with 'Secondary batteries were considered "torpedo defense;"' needs a reference Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree and will have worked on this. I've rephrased my statement as what I had originally written was pretinent to dreadnoughts, and the later use of predreadnoughts, rather than the designers' expectations for the predreadnoughts. I expanded the description in the text, then try to clarify in a note including the references. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)--Kevin Murray (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • No problems reported with dab links or external links. Most of your images lack alt text though, and it would be nice to see that added before moving to up to FAC.
    • According to the dashboard tool, both you and Jim Sweeney have been the largest contributors to the article, but I do not Jim's name in the nomination statement. Has he been informed of the ACR?
    • The last sentence of the opening paragraph of the article reads awkwardly, can this be fixed?
    • This whole article could really benefit from a copyedit; you've got commas all over the place, most of which could/should be removed to help improve article flow, and many of the words choose for the sentence structure seem awkwardly placed which in turn reduce the ease of reading since. In at least one instance I found that a ship class name wasn't italicized, so that should be looked at too.
    • The second paragraph of the secondary battery section has the following line: "There were various opinions on the best combination of guns: all 8-inch (200 mm), all 7-inch (180 mm), or a mix of 8-inch (200 mm) and 8-inch (200 mm)." Somehow, I doubt very much that the ship would have a mix of 8in and 8in guns, perhaps 8in and a different caliber was considered instead?
      • Fixed.
    • You've got a lot of small section headers that in all honesty could probably merged to form larger headers to better cover the information present. Just something to consider, but I would encourage that this be done on at least some level since the people at FAC have in the past frowned on such small sections if they feel the sections serve no purpose.
      • Are you talking about the subsections in the armament section? I do feel that they serve a purpose as a mile stone for the reader as the discussion can get a bit tedious in the detail of the various weapons, especially for the novice reader. But if they need to go in order to conform to FA standards, I understand. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try and lose the see also section by working the links into the main body of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above all thank you so much for taking the time to help me here and leave this excellent advice. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think these ndashes were changed to a hyphen using a script.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in the Bibliography, some of the works are formatted differently (for example the work by Gardiner and Lambert). This is because some use the template and others don't. I'd suggest adding the template to all of the books to ensure that they display consistently. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that I've got the format consistent now among the works listed in the bibliography. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, should be fine now. However, before taking to FAC I strongly recommend adding the template to all the works. Currently only some of them have it, while others don't. As a result some of the ISBNs appear linked and others don't. Additionally, some of the ISBNs have hyphens and others don't. These should be made consistent. It's only a minor consistency issue, though, so shouldn't really hold the article back from A class, but might be an issue at FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - if you need a see also section, by all means include one.
    • A lot of the images need links back to the source page – I think http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/bb23.htm contains all of the NH&HC ones.
    • All done with links to the source or original image at commons for those that I modified
      • WP:MOS#IMAGES advises against image sandwiches, like the one in the machinery section.
      • I've wrestled with this. I agree that it is not ideal, but I'd like to be bold here and stick with the two images for now as I see value in both. I have reduced the vertical size of these set them both to the right to eliminate the sandwich. Should be better now, depending on the viewer settings. I hope this solves the problem. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Friedman's U.S. Battleships was written in 1985, not '89...
    • I'd advise pinging User:WereSpielChequers and asking him to use his typo script (I think he uses one of those cool scripts... if he doesn't, he'll be able to point you at someone who does!)
      • Done - requested that he join our efforts. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pinged. Duly read through and made a few tweaks. I think the alt texts could do with rethinking, remember with alt text someone already has your caption but can't actually see your picture - either they are blind or accessing the article by mobile phone. So no need to repeat anything in the caption, and no point trying to explain every detail in the picture. But ideally one uses a dozen words to give a hint of what thousand words the image conveys. I've had a bash at one, hope that helps. Also I think the lead overemphasis the history of the design, and underplays the story of the two ships of that class. Later there is a section where each ship gets a near identical paragraph, unless I'm missing some differences it might flow better as "both ships had shakedown cruises off Guantanamo..... differing only in that....." The Greco Turkish war could do with some rephrasing, my memory is that the Greeks tried to take a large area of Ionia with many Greek communities, and the war ended with a large mutual ethnic cleansing. But significantly from our point of view the Greeks lost the foothold they tried to capture in Asia, whilst keeping the islands - I.E. the army was defeated but not the navy. There is also a dissonance between the lead and the Fate sections. One refers to decommissioning the other to reserve and auxiliary roles. ϢereSpielChequers 23:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alt text: expanded to be more explanatory of the visuals and redundancies removed.--Kevin Murray (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Lead overplays the design: Moved some discussion to a new section and rounded out the lead.--Kevin Murray (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Combining sections on the ships: I'm not sure what the best course is here. Though these ships took similar paths in the U.S. Navy, because they were similarly disimilar to the rest of the new ships, they weren't absolutely tied at the hip. The problem with these "career" sections is that they are frequently disjointed facts formed into manageble paragraphs by sequence only. At WP, we can't really draw conclusions or offer opinions not offered in the source materials, and on most of these old ships the information is often uneven and limited. I'm concerned that combining these sections will make the flow more uneven and confusinig. My goal was to follow the guide of the FA article at Indiana class battleship, getting two excellent articles at either end of the U.S. predreadnought series, then fill-in over time using a consistent pattern. My thought is to keep these separate, but transfer detail to the articles for the individual ships, but keep the separate sections as consistent with the Indiana class article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Greko Turkish War rephrase and clarify: Resolved. --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dissonance between Lead and Fate sections: I have clarified the nuance in the Fate section. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks, I've struck the resolved bits and done a slight rephrase re the war. It is still very contentious as to whether particular areas were majority Turkish or Greek before these events, but describing the area as mixed should be acceptable to both sides and more than adequate for the purposes of this article. ϢereSpielChequers 11:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you know you can put citations in the notes? See [1] for how. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and comments

  • FWIW, I'd prefer a hyphen in the title and therefore also in the first sentence (Mississippi-class battleships), but I don't have the attention span necessary for another argument over TITLEs so I won't push it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is too short for FAC for an article of this length. I probably would have asked for a longer lead at GAN, too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've increased the lead to discuss more issues. Perhaps we could go further, but there really isn't that much that can be said without further explanation so we end up with a short article prefacing a long article. Many leads for ship articles summarize what the ships did, but these did very little. The story is in the failure of the ships and the process leading to their design. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a fan of "albeit" (in Wikipedia) myself, because I prefer words that 90% of our readers will know, but I can't find any objections in style guides so I'll leave it alone. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone have an opinion on "a Connecticut" to mean one of the Connecticut-class ships? I don't remember seeing this in the books in my library. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to be too fussy about headings, people spend too much time on Wikipedia arguing over titles and labels, but "Last U.S. Navy pre-dreadnought" doesn't feel right to me. We don't usually attempt to make a "point" in the heading, only to set context ... for instance, "Comparison with other classes". - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to "Pre-dreadnought." I took this out of the lead in the process, since the lead was overly focused on this issue. These ships have little claim to fame or significance, and this is among the few. When I first began cleaning up this and the articles around it, there was a mess regarding last-dreadnought status and confusion within and among the articles. Personnally I think that the Dreadnought definition is over emphasized as a benchmark, but ??? --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per usual disclaimer. I don't disagree with the many positive things said above, and I'm sure we can massage this into an A-class article in time. Here's a list of some of the remaining problems. Other good sources of information on what we're looking for are in previous A-class reviews and edit summaries.

  • "This was the last pre-dreadnought": "This" is too far away from what it's modifying. "The Mississippi-class battleships were ..." - Dank (push to talk)
  • "for reasons of economy and compromise, the ships were considered inferior ...": Each word should play a role in answering a likely question (even if the answer is incomplete or imperfect) rather than raising an unanswered question. What "compromise"? It's not cost, because you just said "economy". - Dank (push to talk)
    • Hmm? This is a tricky one. The compromise was broader than economy, but too complicated to explain in that sentence. it is explained in the following sentence. I'm not really excited about the Pre-Dreadnought paragraph yet, though I think it is important. The reamaining issuse in your list have to do with that paragraph. Please see discussion on Pre-dreadnought section below. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


'Discussion of pre-dreadnought section' Dank has made some very good points, all of which have been addressed, except several having to do with one pivitol paragraph, which was added after the article reache GA status, much of which was taken out of the lead, which seemed to be bogged in detail. Dank's comments are restated here for clarity: --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "for reasons of economy and compromise, the ships were considered inferior ...": Each word should play a role in answering a likely question (even if the answer is incomplete or imperfect) rather than raising an unanswered question. What "compromise"? It's not cost, because you just said "economy". - Dank (push to talk)
    • I'm meaning for this sentence to be a summary lead for the section, with the later discussion to provide the answer. I think that I disagree with you, but am open to being convinced of my error.
  • "those preferring more but less expensive battleships": unclear. - Dank (push to talk)
    • This is a clumsy concept, you woud expect one side to say we want fewer but better and the other to say we want more but less cost per ship. But the proponents of the higher tech ships would have preferred more ships, but each to be the best possible. It was not a zero-sum-solution.
  • "However, the next design, the South Carolina class, was a completely different approach ...": Neither "however" nor "but" would work here, because there's no contradiction or tension involved: the next class is better, and that's to be expected. (Copyeditors: see Chicago, 5.220, at "but".) - Dank (push to talk)
    • There is contradiction and there was tension. I'm just not getting the point across. The Missippi class was a departure from the progression, an intentional step backwards for economy and strategy (third rater concept as advocated by Mahan and Dewey), but ironically the next class was a radical new approach abondoning both economy and the third-rater strategy.
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.
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 Árpád

[edit]
Nominator(s): White Shadows


I'm nominateing this article for an A-class review because I belive that it meets all of the requirements. It's a fairly nice article and well sourced but it is small. There is not that much info for the Habsburg class battleships. Like the other ships in the AH navy, they just sat in Pola or Trieste for all of WWI exept the bombardment of Ancona. Any comments are welcome :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Sorry about that. I've fixed it by removeing the non used books.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If needed. I can give the exact targets that Arpad bombarded in the attackon Ancona but other than that. I've pulled out all the stops. The ship did nothing other than the bombardment of Ancona and the flight of Goeben and Breslau. I do hope that there is anough coverage to let you support but if not, I'm afraid that I may not have any more info to give you all.--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; my reasoning is in the A-class review for SMS Habsburg. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added my support above because all my concerns have been addressed and to be honest I don't feel that there is anything else that can be added to the article (I am, of course, however, a layman). Unless someone can state specifically what else needs to be included in the article, I don't think it if fair on the article or the editor to oppose due to a lack of content. ACR concerns should be actionable. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although I found additional material on Arpad and Habsburg in some (in German) books, these are not required for the English language wiki, as I understand it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I formally withdraw my nomination of this ACR. Perhaps I'll come back to it at a later date but it has become obvious that it will not pass at this time. Thanks for !voteing :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 16:25, 23 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.
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 Habsburg

[edit]
Nominator(s): White Shadows talk


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because User:White Shadows asked me to do so. Comments would be nice. Buggie111 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm nominating this article for an A-Class review because I think that it meets all of the required criteria. It's well referenced, covers all of the main points (or lack of points as the AH navy simply rotted away at port for 15+ years) and is should be gramatically correct and contains pictures. Any comments or concers would be welcome :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I've removed the books that are not used in the article. And Is there and rule or policy or even an A-class criteria that discounts encyclopedias?--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, what makes them not a RS? And can you please show me a link to Ed's FAC that got failed due to his use of an encyclopedia? And I added the books in there by accident. I never intended to use them in the article and I copied the set from the main article, Habsburg class battleship. Sorry for the confusion.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I understand the problems inherent in writing about a ship that rarely left port and that there are a dearth of sources on such a ship. However, two paragraphs of information is simply not enough for me. I can't suggest any additional sources, but foreign-language ones may be necessary if this is to receive a full account. What I can suggest aside from that:
    • "After Italy entered the war on the side of France and Great Britain, the Austro-Hungarian navy bombarded several Italian port cities along the Adriatic coast. Habsburg took part in the bombardment of Ancona." -- okay, what cities. What did Habsburg do? Find books that detail these actions (as opposed to warship-oriented books). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found out was places Habsburg bombarded on her own in the bombardment of Ancona as well as adding in a few more citatins and overall small expansions of the service history of the ship. However, you may still think that there is not enough info but every source that I find tells me that she remained in her moorings for the rest of the war and only left port once to go on target practice due to a shortage of coal.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This seems a bit lacking in sources. Why no reference to The Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Navy by Sokol? Or The development of the Austro-Hungarian navy 1897 - 1914 : a study in the operation of dualism or Seemacht Österreich : die kaiserlich und königliche Kriegsmarine, 1382-1918. I pulled these up on OCLC with a simple search on Austro-Hungarian Navy. I'm sure that there are other sources that might be useful in expanding this ship's history like Warship International.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. I'll try to add in those sources. (Though I doubt that I'll be able to expand the text itself)--White Shadows you're breaking up 13:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who crossed out you comments. (Helps me figure out which ones are done. If you consider this refractoring your comments then just tell me and I'll revert them)--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me, but I'd advise caution with it. Some editors might not like it, so I'd suggest putting {{Done}} beside it (which will produce a green tick) and letting them decide if you've addressed their concerns. Regarding the years in citations, it is not a requirement so it can be removed if you want, however, if you have it for one you should have it for all IMO. Regarding the ISBN hyphens I don't believe there is a requirement for them to be there, or not to be there, just that you are consistent in your approach. If you want to not use them, they can just be manually removed by deleting them in edit mode. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it was not appropriate to use the Done checkmark in ACR's. Thanks for the clarification. I'll also go and remove the hyphens and the year as well. After that, I'll have addressed all of your comments.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right about the ticks. Some editors at ACR try to avoid both ticks and strikes by simply responding below the point saying what they've done to address it and then letting the reviewer decide whether or not they've addressed their comments (and to strike or put the done ticks). If you are at all concerned, I'd suggest taking that third approach as it should (hopefully) be the less likely to get you into trouble. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done with all of your comments. And I'll take your advice on that now.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSupport: All my concerns have been met. I believe that there's little more in the way of content that could be added (although I don't know much about ships articles), so I am happy to support. Can those that have opposed please take another look and state whether their opposes still stand or whether concerns have been met? Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for this one and SMS Árpád, and I want to stress that this isn't a criticism of the editors or their skill with this article or their selection of a topic. Some readers are quite interested in the design and engineering of these ships, of course, but I suspect the bulk of the readership of A-class ship articles are more interested in what happened, and what happened is 3 paragraphs for this ship and 2 paragraphs for the Árpád, and apparently nothing more is on the way. A-class is a kind of "branding", a way of pointing readers to the articles we're proudest of and that we think they'll enjoy the most, and it's a bad idea to "dilute the brand", as the marketers say, because readers (like it or not) will make assumptions about A-class articles they haven't read based on the ones they've read. I wouldn't want this to be their introduction to our A-class articles. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm probably losing some people here talking about branding. This is from brand: "Individual brand names naturally allow greater flexibility by permitting a variety of different products, of differing quality, to be sold without confusing the consumer's perception of what business the company is in or diluting higher quality products." That's my point; "branding" these two articles as GAs, and providing links to the GA and A-class reviews, as we do, gives appropriate credit and lets readers see the attention to detail and the nice things people said about the articles, without changing their expectations of A-class articles in general. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree on both accounts. I think that opposeing this ACR based off of other articles is quite frankly rude and insulting to me and Buggie111. The service recoed secion is so small bacuase they never did anything. It's not our fault that the AHN rotted in port for 15+ years. There is no loack of information. Every detail about this ship has been given and every action that she did has been discussed in the text. Not a single point has been left out. As a result, the artice covers thye topic very throughly even though there was a lack of actions that the battleship(s) actually did.--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading one FA reviewer who said that he'd oppose anything under 20k as not being notable enough to deserve FA status. Perhaps that's part of what you're running into here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I once had that same thought in my head. I withdraw my co-nom, as RL and other stuff is taking up alot of time. Buggie111 (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to still carry the nomination on. Gentlemen, let me ask you all a question. What good is it to oppose an article for an ACR if it is under 20K? I understand the concept but every detail (or lack thereoff) has been brought forth in this ACR. This article whent from just barely a GA to one of my best pieces of work due to this and yet I have yet to recive a single support. I'm not asking for sympathy votes but if there is no material about this ship, well then there just is not material. Simply, she left port for exercises in 1904-05, bombarded a few ey places in Ancona in 1915 and whent back to pola for 3 1/2 years. I took that little sentence and expanded it to 3 paragraphs. There are 5 requirements to an AC article:
  • A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
  • A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
  • A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
  • A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
  • A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.
No where does it say, this article must be X characters long or xK in size. This allows articles like this one to become AC articles. SMS Habsburg meets all of these requirements and more. It does cover all major facts and details since there are only 3 major details to cover. That does'nt mean that it should fail, just that there is less to talk about than other articles.--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added my support above because all my concerns have been addressed and to be honest I don't feel that there is anything else that can be added to the article (I am, of course, however, a layman). Unless someone can state specifically what else needs to be included in the article, I don't think it if fair on the article or the editor to oppose due to a lack of content. ACR concerns should be actionable. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eventual Support I'm planning to support this once the issues with prose are addressed. I'm not a judge of the ship's overall importance, but it seems to me that the issues of the AH navy itself are notable. I'd like to see this article put the navy itself into context (this article and Parsec's Erzherzog. How big was the navy? what did the advent of the Tetterhof (?) ships entail? Were they bigger/faster/better, thus making the Habsburg obsolete? AH's 19th and 20th century problems were acerbated in part by its limited ports, and the difficulty of maintaining blue water access from the Adriatic. I've made some specific suggestions to Parsec, and I'd like to see if he and Buggie and White shadows can deal with them. As for the prose issues on Habsburg (and I suppose Arpad, but I haven't read it yet), I'll help with those. If the action of the ships was limited, then so be it. However, if that's the case, perhaps it's interesting not only to focus on the details of the ship (specifications) but also on the big picture of the ship and the navy. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You pointed out that there was an issue with the prose. Can you point out where as I'm not the greatest writer on wikipedia. Is a copy-edit in need? As for the "whole picture" idea, I agree with you and I'll try to add some more detail about Habsburg's role in the AHN in the next few days. Thanks.--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a light ce, and it's better now (although not perfect). Go ahead and add, and then we'll see what needs to happen prose-wise. Basically, it was very repetitive. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to add something about the navy generally, let me know when you've done it. I found some additional material (although in Germany) on the details of the shelling of Anacona. here. and here is the Austro-Hungarian Navy Order of Battle in August 1914. There is more on the Arpad here. She apparently had an additional foray in 1917? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll try to incorporate that into the articles if possible :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone here speek German, because I certainly do not.--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My German isn't great but I'll give it a shot, what would you like translated? - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much anything that mentions Habsburg or Aprad in it :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, if you follow those links I posted above, it will take you to the sections of the books that mention the Arpad and the Habsburg. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a problem on the List of the ships, under the class: Erzherzog Ferdinand Max class, SMS Habsburg (1868) links to this ship. You'll needs someone who reads German, and there are several people in the project, including myself, who do. The Order of Battle is self-evident, however. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but what did you mean by the first sentence or two?--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the template at the bottom of the article links to this article: List_of_ships_of_the_Austro-Hungarian_Navy, and under this section, List_of_ships_of_the_Austro-Hungarian_Navy#Armorclad ships and River Monitors, the list shows the Erzherzog Ferdinand Max class includes SMS Habsburg (1865).. That Habsburg is not the same as the subject of the article under review, although it links to the article. This needs to be fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

where is this going? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not know. Some artilces just will never pass an ACR....--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been able to incorporate some of the other material? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dank has not translated it yet. When he does I'll add it in.--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure he's planning on doing it. Your response to him was fairly ambiguous--the parts that mention the ship. Did you look at the text? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. But I cannot even read what it says in German due to the wierd hand writeing...--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I formally withdraw my nomination of this ACR. Perhaps I'll come back to it at a later date but it has become obvious that it will not pass at this time. Thanks for !voteing :)
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_Ships/Assessment/2010/Failed&oldid=408842248"