Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Körös/archive1


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2016.

SMS Körös

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a river monitor that served successively with the navies of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during WWI, and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Axis puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia, during WWII. During WWI she fought along the Danube from Belgrade to its mouth, and even made a foray across the Black Sea to Odessa. During WWII she was scuttled, raised, and later mined, after which she was raised again and broken up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I feel you should explain why there were charges on the bridge to begin with. 23 editor (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * have added a few additional words to clarify. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Support: looks pretty good to me, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the lead could be tweaked a little to clarify that the monitor remained in service throughout the inter-war years. It probably wouldn't need much more than a short clause after the part where you mention the renaming to Morava
 * the launched date of 5 February 1892 only appears in the infobox, I suggest mentioning it in the body of the article;
 * same as above with the commissioning date of 21 April 1892
 * " Equivalent to a Austro-Hungarian..." --> " Equivalent to an Austro-Hungarian..."
 * in the References, Sondhaus should appear before Stein
 * All addressed, thanks Rupert! These are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Support - all my concerns were addressed below. Good work! starship.paint ~  KO   07:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello,, I have gone through the whole text and my review is below. Additionally, I also have an FAC up there I hope you will check out. starship.paint ~  KO   13:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * see my comment below :) starship.paint ~  KO   07:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * fought the Serbian Army, the Romanian Navy and Army, and the French Army from Belgrade to the lower Danube during World War I. - how about the English and the Russians mentioned in the Serbian campaign?
 * I've widened it to the Allies.


 * She was designed by Austrian naval architect Josef Thiel, and laid down at Budapest on 30 March 1890 - firstly, what does laid down mean? Secondly, was the ship designed in 1890, and if not, when was it designed?
 * linked keel laying. No information in sources about when she was designed, presumably immediately prior to her keel laying.


 * Is there a particular reason for the Wiki-link to Danube Flotilla when there is a previous link to Austro-Hungarian Navy?
 * Yes, I would have redlinked it if it wasn't a redirect, I expect to create the article sometime soon.


 * Körös was badly damaged later in the campaign - is there further information on this? What damaged it, how was Koros damaged, what was damaged, repairs done?
 * All good questions, but I didn't add that information, and can't find any details in my sources.
 * Alright. I found that source, and will be adding whatever information it has. starship.paint ~  KO   09:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Konstad source page 4: "In September 1914 she was instrumental in forcing a passage from the river Danube into its tributary the Sava, and then operated on the river in support of the Austrian army during the battle of Drina." Konstad source page 29: "The Serbs repulsed four large-scale offensives, but the monitors played their part by bombarding the Serbian capital of Belgrade and preventing Serbian counter-attacks across the river Sava, which entered the Danube just above the city." on second thought I'll leave you to insert this into the article. Those are exact quotes so they will need to be paraphrased. starship.paint ~   KO   10:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * - the comment above should be one of the last issues... starship.paint ~  KO   05:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, only just got to these. The first one is already covered, these are the same events as mentioned in Halpern (commenced 28 September 1914). I think the gist of the second one is also already in the article (in a couple of places) as well. I'm also a little dubious about the Konstam source, particularly the fact that her being "badly damaged" doesn't appear in any other sources, especially Pawlick et al which is specific to the Danube Flotilla and has a very comprehensive timeline for each vessel. If she was "badly damaged", there was precious little time for her to be repaired before she was back in action again. Without wishing to engage in OR, I don't think Konstam is in the same league as a source as Pawlick and Greger, and would prefer to leave it out of the article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * hmm. You may have a point. Konstam doesn't have a 'reference section' in the book. That seems quite suspect. So what is the course of action you are proposing... removing all Konstam references? starship.paint ~  KO   07:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, Osprey pubs can range from good to terrible; this one is a very general reference when we already have quite detailed and specific ones. I propose removing it from the article, along with the cited info. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * - alright, nuke them then. One more thing - should we state that the lede picture is a painting? starship.paint ~  KO   11:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, and done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not a history warfare editor and so there were several terms I did not recognize. Thus far I have managed to understand them after adding Wiki-links; other clarifications were done too in these edits and these other edits.
 * Thanks, they were great edits/links.


 * The lede and body never actually mentions World War II anywhere but in one header, could you add that into the text for clarity.
 * Done.


 * Immediately after the armistice - which armistice? Could you write and Wiki-link?
 * Good point, Villa Guisti. Have added that.


 * lede: most were obliged to surrender / body: The larger group only made it as far as Sarajevo on 14 April before they were obliged to surrender. - "obliged" seems like a weird word to use in this case (in my view surrender is a choice and not forced), perhaps use ... before they surrendered to the _____".
 * Fixed, it was unnecessarily wordy.
 * The phrase "obliged to surrender" s still in the body. starship.paint ~  KO   12:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ... in which she served as Bosna, alongside her fellow monitor Sava, - wasn't the Sava scuttled too? If it was repaired, it could be mentioned together.
 * Done.


 * ... she was raised and broken up - by who?
 * Sadly, the source doesn't say. I presume the new Yugoslav government, the NDH government had virtually no control of anything prior to the end of the war.
 * Thanks for the review! I had a look at the FAC you linked to, but I am completely out of my depth when it comes to the subject of wrestling... Sorry. Cheers again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was totally new to this article's field too. I've reviewed five other FACs first and only one reviewed mine... Oh well. starship.paint ~  KO   07:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

this one looks good to go, any chance I could get a FAC coord dispensation for a new nom? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Source review - Just having a look at the sources, why have you used "pp. 432 & 405" for one source but "pp. 357, 359" for another? No other issues noted. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * An oversight. I've fixed it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.