Talk:SMS Szent István/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "She was enroute to rendezvous with the other dreadnoughts for an attack on the Otranto Barrage scheduled for the following day. " - this sentence in the lead seems to be disconnected with the text around it.
 * See how it reads now.
 * The term "she" is used a lot - to reduce confusion among unfamiliar readers, please name the ship whenever it is first mentioned in a paragraph.
 * Done.
 * "with the name Hungarian:" - odd word order, I think "Hungarian" should come before "name".
 * That was caused by the template. See how it reads now.
 * "and made only one two-day trip to Pag Island" - are you saying that the ship only made one trip lasting two-days? If so, then that sentence needs a comma.
 * Yes, reworded.
 * "Only 89 sailors died, partly attributed to the fact" - clarify, i.e. "Only 89 sailors died, the low death toll partly attributed to the fact"
 * Better phrasing added.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * "that negated the snub offered by his heir" - this sounds like an opinion, can we have an individual source for this?
 * Done.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * In the lead you mention that the ship was built in Hungary as the result of Hungarian political support for the warship estimates, but I can't see any mention of this in the main body of the article.
 * Expanded this.
 * "She was delayed by the start of the war," - what aspects of the ship were delayed - presumably the fitting out, but which parts?
 * No real information on this.
 * "The Italians also did their best to liven things up for the crew of the Szent István" - this is rather informal and a bit unencyclopedic (as well as potentially confusing for unfamiliar editors), can it be reworded?
 * I'm an informal kinda guy, but I've reworded it. But I'm not really happy with the new wording as it lost the parallelism with the first sentence. See what you think.
 * You are right, it was better the first time. Please change it back if you wish.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Linienschiffsleutnant Meusburger of the Tegetthoff as well as an official film crew" - this is not immediately clear whether you mean "with a film crew" or that there was more than one film, slight rewording needed.
 * Clarified.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * A sentence in the lead commenting on the ship's weight and armament might help develop a better first impression of the vessel
 * Added, with a cite.
 * Do we know why Franz ordered the name changed and why his son refused to attend the launch?
 * No reason is given why Franz changed the name and his son was very anti-Hungarian. This last has been added.
 * It was his nephew who was anti-hungarian.Eregli bob (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A thought for the consequences section, has there been any comparison between this and the loss of Viribus Unitis later in the year, particularly in relation to the number of casualties? If not then no problem, I was just wondering.
 * Not sure what you're getting at, but they were two entirely different situations. Szent Istvan was at sea and was torpedoed, but took a long time to sink. Viribis Unitis was in harbor and was about to be turned over to the Yugoslavs, IIRC. So I'm not sure how many crewmen were onboard when she was mined.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try and clarify, although this is non-essential. The low total of 89 men killed is attributed to the men's ability to swim. However when VU was sunk later in the year, inside a harbour with warning that a mine was about to go off, over 300 men were killed - Why was the death toll so much higher in the second instance? I know the ship had been handed over but I remember reading somewhere some years ago that most of the crew had not yet been replaced, only the commanding officers. That same book compared the casualties between the ships and gave a reason why the second was so much higher but I cannot now remember it. I'm afraid I also cannot remember the name of this book or where I found it, but I was wondering if this information appeared in other histories and could be included. Since it seems that it does not and this is a minor point anyway, it doesn't sound like something worth pursuing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

An excellent article and nice improvements. I'll promote this later today when I have a bit more time. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just about get started on some easier fixes, but I see it was pretty much all handled, good job. Hobartimus (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)